The Democratic party made a deal with the Bush administration last May. Pelosi announced it in the Washington Post:
By Charles Babington Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, May 12, 2006; Page A06
Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.
Conyer's backup to her announcement was buried on p. 23 of the Post, but since he was the House leader on impeachment, he evidently had to make a public statement as part of the deal.
By John Conyers Jr. Thursday, May 18, 2006; Washington Post Page A23
As Republicans have become increasingly nervous about whether they will be able to maintain control of the House in the midterm elections, they have resorted to the straw-man strategy of identifying a parade of horrors to come if Democrats gain the majority. Among these is the assertion that I, as the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.
Bush thought he would keep control of at least the Senate. The usual Republican dirty tricks were played to maintain majorities in both Houses- keeping Democrats off the voter rolls, hacking the machines:
There was gross vote count manipulation and it had a great impact on the results of E2006, significantly decreasing the magnitude of what would have been, accurately tabulated, a landslide of epic proportions... When we compare the results of this national exit poll with the total vote count for all House races we find that once again, as in the 2004 Election ("E2004"), there is a very significant exit poll-vote count discrepancy. The exit poll indicates a Democratic victory margin nearly 4%, or 3 million votes, greater than the margin actually recorded by the vote counting machinery. This is far outside the margin of error of the poll and has less than a one in 10,000 likelihood of occurring as a matter of chance. http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/landslide_denied_exit_polls_vs_vote_count_2006
Despite the massive voter repudiation of the Bush administration, the Democrats are holding to their part of the bargain, Both Pelosi and Conyers have repeated that "impeachment is off the table". Here's a report of a recent call in show to Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA):
From Bob Wilkinson of Impeach Bush-Cheney- Willits: "For those of you that didn't hear the 7 to 8 pm call-in show tonight on KMUD with Mike Thompson, this is my take on the series of calls and his response: The majority of calls asked or told Thompson that impeachment should be on the table. Some callers came at it as an accountability issue, some as a way to restore our standing in this nation and the world. ... Thompson was getting frustrated at the numerous calls about impeachment and referred to it at one time as nothing more than beating the dead horse. He came out and said that all Democrats in Congress, including John Conyers, have taken impeachment off the table in order to move forward on a multitude of issues such as Iraq, immigration, and the environment.
What sort of deal did the Democrats make? What inducement was so powerful that it holds up even after the Democrats have won control of both houses of Congress, with a landslide victory?
Bush is in opposition to the Democratic agenda on the issues Mike Thompson mentioned, and will do his best to block progress on withdrawal from Iraq, control of global warming, repealing the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act, etc. The Democrats would accomplish their goals much more quickly once Bush and Cheney were impeached, discredited, out of office, and replaced by Democrats in the White House.
So, what's the deal? We know what Bush got out of it- at least partly- an escape from the impeachment and eviction from office that he richly deserves. Evidently, another piece is that he continues to have a free hand in Iraq, despite voter rejection of this occupation. What did the Democrats get?
Carol S. Wolman, MD is a psychiatrist in Northern California. A lifelong peace activist, she is helping to distribute a Peace Plan for the Holy Land- email her for a copy.
As the Green candidate for Congress in California District 1 in '08, she (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Firstly, what could Bush offer Pelosi as an inducement to take impeachment off the table? If the Democrats gained a majority in both Houses then what would they require of Bush?
Secondly, the GOP strategy, that of refusing to deal with a number of spending bills so that the incoming Congress will be forced to take these up immediately, and take the blame for all that spending, smacks of setting up the Dems already. Why would this be if a deal was brokered?
With investigations a foregone conclusion these politicos would have to ignore the evidence that is sure to be uncovered, so why investigate at all? Any indictment of White House staffers or elected officials for assisting in war profiteering, for the obvious (to me) sell out of our energy policy to Enron and others or any of the myriad other questionable administration machinations would soon find pleas for reduced sentencing in return for spilling the beans. Surely Bush and Rove are as aware of this possibility as would be Pelosi and company. The whole thing fails to hold water.
As to this comment by you:
"The voters have placed their confidence in the Democratic party, to carry out the will of the people- get rid of Bush and Cheney, get out of Iraq, restore our freedoms. Have we been sold down the river by a secret deal with Bush? Don't we have a right to know?"
I would offer that the vote was a vote against and not a vote for, against Bush policies and GOP arrogance, and certainly not a vote for an opposition party that has been silent or complicit for six years. It is much too early to draw conclusions about the coming two years but, given the statements issuing from many democrats, I am anticipating nothing much and yet another lost opportunity for the rectification of our far astray national policies.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Dec 7, 2006 at 5:45:12 PM
The full story is not in yet. With the unexpectedly zooming rise in impeachment sentiment, during the final weeks of the campaign, it is not going to stay squelched. The question really becomes: to what extent will it turn against Pelosi and/or other Dems who may have been complicit in this so-called agreement.
And, of course, how will the explosive force of this issue be contained, or put down, or whatever it will be called, when the continuing course of King Bush becomes perfectly clear . . . as is happening, even now. I venture that there is going to be some very rough weather ahead, in the near-term future, in politics-land.
by
Irvthom (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 91 comments) on Saturday, Dec 9, 2006 at 9:39:33 PM
(0+)
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
1 | 2
Contact Author
View Authors' Articles
(0+)
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) 
