 |
|
Add to My Group
|
March 22, 2008 at 07:57:51
The Democratic Majority: Enabling a Rogue Presidency and Stonewalling the American People by Cheryl Biren-Wright Page 1 of 4 page(s) |
|
|
Lawless. Imperial. Rogue. TBA 2006: Challenging Lawlessness In June 2006, Congressman Conyers was on fire at the TBA session "Challenging a Lawless President." Still in the House minority, the great congressman from Michigan was hot on the trail of a lawless President Bush and his unbridled sidekick, Vice President Cheney. Six months earlier, the congressman issued a report declaring, "We have found that there is substantial evidence the president, the vice-president and other high ranking members of the Bush administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their administration."
Inspired and hopeful, progressives hit the streets to help the Democrats take back the House and restore order in the government.
By August, Mr. Conyers had released the final version of the "Constitution in Crisis." He described the report as "some 350 pages in length and is supported by more than 1,400 footnotes, compiles the accumulated evidence that the Bush administration has thumbed its nose at our nation’s laws, and the Constitution itself. Approximately 26 laws and regulations may have been violated by this administration’s conduct." Certainly enough to begin impeachment hearings when one considers President Nixon’s were prompted by a simple burglary.Mr. Conyers went on to say that "The administration also appears to have used the war on terror as an excuse to eviscerate the basic protections afforded to us in the Constitution. There have been warrantless wiretaps of law-abiding Americans, in clear contravention of federal law, not to mention the creation of a huge unchecked database on the phone records of innocent Americans."
He lamented that "All the while, the Republican Congress sits idly by. Rather than performing its constitutional duty as a coequal branch. It has chosen to stymie any and all efforts at oversight. After six long years of deception, attacks and yes, outright lies, I am convinced the American people have had enough."
Indeed the American people had had enough and three months later they handed the Democrats both the House and the Senate.
TBA 2007: Curbing Imperialism
Fast forward to June 2007, when the Take Back America crowd descended once again on the Washington Hilton. This time Congressman Conyers was to discuss "Curbing an Imperial Presidency." Senior staff member to John Conyers, Burt Wides, delivered a prepared speech while the congressman tended to business on the Hill."Since the last election we have begun to shrink Bush’s imperial presidency," Wides read. In what manner the "imperial presidency" was shrinking remained unclear. "President Bush has subverted the checks and balances that are the cornerstone of our freedoms. In most instances, the Republican Congress just went along with those abuses. The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves, not merely at Bush’s blatant erosion of their system, but also and perhaps more at Congress’ supine failure to protect the Constitution. Now that Democrats control Congress, we have a very clear and heavy responsibility to take back the Constitution."
It wasn’t enough that the American people elected a Democratic majority that promised to rein in Bush and Cheney and hold them accountable. They were now charged with a new task. These efforts, according to Conyers, would only succeed with support of citizen groups committed to the Constitution. These groups had already been popping up across the country for years. Many were part of a broad coalition that makes up the organization AfterDowningStreet.org.
AfterDowningStreet, led by activist David Swanson, sprang to life in May 2005 to pressure both Congress and the media to investigate whether President Bush had committed impeachable offenses. The coalition borrowed its name from the incriminating Downing Street Memos that emerged in May and June of 2005.Despite the subject matter, impeachment was never offered as a viable solution to "curbing the imperial presidency" by the TBA panelists. It was, however, on the minds of the audience and questions on impeachment dominated the Q&A session.
After all questions on impeachment were shot down by the panelists, Bob Fertik of Democrats.com addressed the panel. To a cheering audience, Fertik asserted "I think you’re completely misreading the politics in the country. All of the polls report that the majority of Americans support impeachment hearings, a solid majority of Americans and it’s not even being discussed. The American people were way ahead of Congress on Iraq and the American people are way ahead of Congress on impeachment. It’s just time to stop with the ridiculous excuses. The American people know the only way to hold Bush accountable is through impeachment."Grassroots Action
Determined to restore the Constitution and rule of law, groups made up of ordinary citizens, veterans, and constitutional experts forged ahead on their own. John Conyers had called for this and the people responded. Five weeks later, on July 23, an impeachment petition containing more than one million signatures was delivered directly to the congressman. When he told the participants that there were "not enough votes for" impeachment, a peaceful sit-in was held in his office. The group was promptly arrested and hauled off to be processed.
The following month, Congressman Conyers traveled to Newark, New Jersey to promote his national health care bill, H.R. 676 at the People’s March for Peace, Equality, Jobs and Justice. He found himself facing a diverse crowd of a few thousand calling for impeachment. The article, Dancing With Conyers, describes what happened next."In what has become routine now, Conyers fed into the momentum asking ‘What should we do?’ ‘Impeach!’ cried the crowd. ‘What should we do?’ ‘Impeach’ and so it was repeated. The congressman went on to declare that we needed to bring back Rumsfeld and put him on trial and the big question was to decide who ought to go first.‘Cheney!’ shouted the crowd enthusiastically."
To settle the crowd, Conyers offered to meet with activists afterwards. Leaders from the New Jersey Impeach Groups asked the congressman to initiate impeachment hearings. They were told to "work hard" and get one representative from New Jersey to sign onto Representative Kucinich’s resolution (H. Res. 333) to impeach Vice President Cheney. They explained that Congressman Donald Payne, who was on his way to the rally, had signed on a few weeks earlier.The chair of the House Judiciary Committee grew solemn telling the group the risk of failing was too great. It was too risky to use powers granted by the Constitution to remove a few rogue leaders regardless of the consequences of not removing them. This type of exchange was becoming familiar to activists. A few weeks earlier at a meeting with progressive democrats in San Diego, Conyers told the group to get just three more members of Congress to back impeachment. At the time, there were 14 sponsors. Since the offer, 13 more members of Congress cosponsored H. Res. 333 with no movement within the House Judiciary Committee.
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.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 6 comments |
|
A Dissident Democrat?
Is that something like a law-abiding member of the Mafia, or a non-racist member of the Ku Klux Klan? Kucinich called himself "the only real Democrat." But he would never split his party's vote by running as an independent, just because his party and its candidates favor everything he claims to oppose. Sorry, Cheryl, a Democrat is a Democrat is a Democrat, whether you call yourself a dissident Democrat, a progressive Democrat, or the only real Democrat. Being a Democrat means that you will vote for somebody who is committed to continuing the wars of aggression (crimes against humanity) you claim to oppose, because you want your party to get a bigger share of the war profits than the other party. It means that you remained loyal to a party that does not represent you. It means that you are supportive of a system that does not represent you. And it means that you remain loyal to a Constitution that does not even allow you to elect your President and Vice-President. You may, if the state you live in grants you that right, vote for Electors, but their names aren't on the ballots (the names of the candidates you may NOT vote for are on the ballots) so you think you're voting for Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates when you don't even know who you're voting for, but whoever it is, it is NOT the names on the ballot because you may not vote for them, only the Electoral College can do that. John Conyers is a very smart man. And he knows how ignorant and stupid most people are. He knows that the military-industrial complex decides who the candidates will be, decides who will win the elections, and controls both political parties. The MIC will not allow impeachment. So the very fact that people are asking John Conyers to do something that is not within his power to do, tells him how uninformed our electorate is. All the candidates are committed to continuing the war crimes and one of them will be "elected" or selected by the Supreme Court. To belong to ANY political party, or to vote in this country's faith-based elections, is an indication of ignorance and apathy -- ignorance of who really runs this country, and apathy with regard to war crimes. The only thing a person of conscience who wants to be able to die without blood on their hands can do, is to refuse to vote. Fifty percent of the electorate already do just that because nobody on the ballot ever represents their interests. Join us, or remain a Vichy Democrat. Or a dissident Vichy Democrat if you prefer. Whether you piously claim to oppose the war crimes doesn't matter. What matters is if you will support a party (and its candidates) that has consistently voted for war crimes and is committed to continuing them. Only war criminals and their collaborators will do that, and I am proud of the fifty percent of Americans who will not. WE are the only ones who really care. by Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Sunday, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:33:38 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: I think that's an unfair critique...
There really are no viable third parties in the United States. They're underfunded whites only clubs that simply aren't competitive in just about any race of consequence. I think there are differences between the major parties, perhaps not much but I remember having a decent job during the Clinton years, not to mention that I never worried about being sent to an internment camp. I am extremely disappointed that they haven't impeached our current war criminals in chief but I will participate in the process as much as I can... Philip Shropshire www.threeriversonline.com PS: I think there is less risk going after Bush after he's no longer commander in chief of the armed forces, which, and after watching this guy for awhile, he would probably use to keep power, up to and including the arrests of anyone and anybody who tried to "impeach" him... by Philip Shropshire (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 8 comments) on Sunday, Mar 23, 2008 at 3:59:06 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: honestly?
thanks, mark, for sharing your thoughts, but do you honestly think that The only thing a person of conscience who wants to be able to die without blood on their hands can do, is to refuse to vote. Fifty percent of the electorate already do just that because nobody on the ballot ever represents their interests . . . I am proud of the fifty percent of Americans who will not. WE are the only ones who really care. i very seriously doubt the reason 50% of our electorate are not voting is a matter of principle. i seriously doubt there are that many who are sitting around assessing the situation and concluding that no one represents them and hence they are not voting. do you have stats on that? a good percentage of that 50% i am sure are people who simply don't give a sh*t. i think it's more about apathy. that said, perhaps you can share more about what you think people ought to be actively doing to help the situation. and, for the record, i am not registered for any party, although i did take a Democratic ballot in nj last month to vote against clinton. and, no, that does not mean i think obama is all that much better. p.s. do the other "anti-civilizationists" know you're using a computer? by Cheryl Biren-Wright (30 articles, 42 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 485 comments [8 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 23, 2008 at 6:33:52 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Holding impeachment hearings IS within Conyers power
and its also within the ambit of his oath of office. Conyers cannot credibly argue that he does not perceive the Bush administration as a domestic enemy of the constitution. It would involve some political risk yes, but as Cheryl points out in her article that Fein has noted, those who played key roles in the founding of the United States put a lot more at risk personally than just their careers. I am not an American but found Opednews because my daily google alert on impeach Bush kept showing that Opednews was a place where likeminded Americans were posting. Yet even here there is a very small minority that actually seem to know how their own system works as opposed to having mythological beliefs about it - many of which seem to serve no real purpose other than to convince those who could do something with the power of a citizen to actually rationalise doing very little at all. I don't doubt for a moment that there is some substance to the notion of a military industrial complex but I don't credit that any such a complex would weild more political power that large numbers of Americans writing their representatives and demanding that their oaths of office be upheld or else. The real problem with America is that most Americans don't understand the power they have and don't accept any of the responsibilies of maintaining a government of the people by the people for the people. Modern America is a great example of bystander calculus - a phenomena whereby people perceive that there is a problem but also that there are a large numbers of witnesses to that problem and so each actually does less figuring their contribution would either be too small or their non contribution will go overlooked. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Sunday, Mar 23, 2008 at 6:51:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Impeachment list
It is time to add Conyers and Pelosi to the impeachment list. If we can just impeach one of these miserable creeps then maybe the whole deck of them will start to fall. God knows this list is getting bigger all the time. by Hayesml47 (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 540 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Mar 23, 2008 at 5:52:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Why No Impeachment
Cheryl, Please feel free to check out my story on Impeachment. Oh and for the record Impeach For Peace also cornered Conyers in Minnesota. Check out my campaign website, click on the movie about Conyers. I am the guy in Nurses scrubs (I am a Nurse) challenging Conyers. I am a dissident, plain and simple. I oppose BOTH wings of the war machine. Michael Cavlan Minnesota by Michael Cavlan (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 538 comments [131 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 24, 2008 at 2:38:09 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
