Why impeachment is urgent and can't wait

"I think Mr. Conyers knows there is no rush to impeachment. First people need to understand that time has no bearance on the process. In fact we can still impeach Harry Truman. "

Dom, this is very upsetting to read. And I am sure others would agree with me whole-heartedly.

 People are dying for a lie nationally and internationally.

Vladimir Putin is so concerned about Bush striking Russia that he issued a public statement to the Russian people that he will surely retaliate against the USA, with nuclear weapons, if we hit them first. (The BBC reported). The War on Terror obviously poses an international threat and WWIII could break out any minute.

Have you read the ACLU"s website? At length? In detail? Do you know how huge the numbers-----correction, percentages-----are of activists and innocent Americans being queried by the FBI and *officially* called "Terrorists" by the Administration itself?

Have you read about all the innocent victims at Guantanamo----more than 850 of them-----who have never once been charged with any crime?
Have you read about the USA's statement that they have "sanctioned" kidnapping and can continue to do so anywhere on the globe they please? BBC report, again.

I am so mad when I read your opening statement. How can people say such things? Wake up, buddy, before it is too late! I am quite sure your deliberate intention would never be to support violent crime. But unwittingly, you are doing it.

This is an emergency. There is absolutely not a second to wait, if we want to protect the world from WW III and if we want free speech itself to survive-----no that is not an exaggeration. Read the ACLU's website. AT LENGTH. PLEASE!! And don't come back to me with a "paranoia" statement until you have researched the facts at length. THEN we can talk again.

by Kathryn Smith (93 articles, 2 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 361 comments) on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 11:53:53 AM
 

The race is about Race if Conyers fails his duty

Some may think it is upsetting, but it is true. I am all for impeachment, it should be done now, and it should have been done years ago to other lying Presidents, a sting and succession of them before and after Harry Truman. People are arguing that we have no time to impeach because of the election cycle, and my argument is that it doesn't matter. Impeachment should be able to go forward at any time in any administration.

Do not think I support these stone wallers, that have been doing their tricks from way back when. They are are the problem. My article is pointing out what Conyers must be really thinking about in these coming days. Anyone who thinks this is not about race in this election will prove me wrong if impeachment is tabled.

Obama is against Impeachment, and I think Conyers is playing Obama's tune because of race in the race to the White House. He says impeachment is not off the table, yet where is it? Is he saying this so people do not treat him like Nancy Pelosi, and Reid? It buys him time for what?

The only time slot I see is the Obama Candidacy. Obama has lost to Florida, which may give Conyers more motivation to begin the impeachment process. He knows if Impeachment begins before he really knows Obama has no chance of getting the nomination it could upset the first chance a Black American may have in getting the job as President. Eyes are going to be glued to the Impeachment beginnings, and big Media will be forced to tell the public Obama is not supporting Conyers.

This news could jeopardize Obama's electability, and also hurt Conyers. I am sure he is thinking if he tabled impeachment all eyes would point to Hillary since the news would begin to focus on the last impeachment against Bill Clinton, and then the flood gates begin to open, in comparing sex lie impeachment hearings to War lies and murder impeachment hearings. This would clearly take attention away from Obama and his bid for the White House.

No doubt there will be animosity just like the trial of Saddam having his lawyers shot and killed. You think Conyers wants to be in on the receiving end of that?

My thought is if we have impeachment; how do we assure the safety of the prosecuters, and defense witnesses? If we can not have Impeachment it is a clear indication we do not live in a Democracy but are under seige by the Military. In fact I would call it unannounced Marshall Law that we are living under.

I think it will come to McCain and Hillary in the big race.  Who knows what Hillary will do? She might choose Obama as her VP! Then we have another implication to whether Hillary would support Impeachment.  We know McCain would not support Impeachment, which means Pelosi's real intention to not tabling of Impeachment comes true in getting a Democrat in the White House.

When will they table impeachment? I mean when Bush is out of Office? I think that will be the question. It could very well backfire on Pelosi because the people want Justice more than they want Presidential Preferance.

What I am disgusted about is Conyers lack of action and leadership. He is about as senior in government as Byrd, and yet does what to establish leadership authenticity? He would make a better President than Obama in my opinion, yet he idly stands by as the nice guy or really do nothing guy, when it comes to walking the talk, and doing the right.

All I know is if Martin Luther King was in Congress or the Senate he would have tabled Impeachment LONG ago. Which brings me to Reverend Jesse Jackson. Where is this civil rights leader on the crimes this administration has done to the innocent people in Iraq? He says nothing about Impeachment. Don't tell me he is not impossible to talk to or find. They keep silent because they are all playing the RACE Card, right down to Al Sharpton who likes to accuse others of racism, by telling Bill Clinton to Shut UP...

Yet he shuts-up to impeachment to get Obama elected following Obama's no impeachment rhetoric. Who is committing racism in this race? I think it is pretty clear.

These guys are not for Justice in bringing America to face its real problems and issues. It's OK they took out Saddam and hung him in a fake trial, and killed thousands of innocent Iraqi people and Kids to get him. It's OK to shut up about Black Americans who are enlisted to fight and die in Iraq over a lie in going to War, right Al?

Civil Rights Leaders, and Black Presidential Candidates would not be shutting up or allowing these atrocities to happen, if they were real leaders.

Instead they fall back on the very thing they originally began fighting about. They support racism and discrimination while they shout verbs of in action against it.

So much for the legend of Martin Luther King, so much for the suffering and continued crimes against real Black Americans who have suffered from this lying sack over his head Bush/Rove Presidency.

I just wish Conyers would take the leadership role and direct our country toward truth. I think it would be more significant than Martin Luther Kings actions, because this Impeachment is going to stick, and turn the tide toward Justice for all.

Those who ignore the process of Impeachment stand before the swallows of time, because they will perish in the wind as crusted fallen leaves of debris to rest in the very ditches where racism began.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 7:48:50 PM
 

Presidential Powers

You will not see any of the presidential hopefuls come out favoring impeachment as this administration has established an entirely new set of ground rules for the presidency and each of these individuals are desirous of that degree of power.  Only Kucinich attempted to voice this and we see what corporate media and the power elite have done to him.  The tide has changed from our democracy and the three branches to where only one has power.  Conyers knows this -- Congress just does not have the power. It was anthraxed and Wellstoned away from them and the rest have quietly succumbed.

by Dennis Kaiser (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 12:24:06 PM
 

Why do you think that former CIA top brass AND

military and former State Department officials are pushing IMPEACHMENT?

Because they know ALL ABOUT GENEVA.

Conyers doesn't want his own neck swinging from a rope.

He's read all about NUREMBERG, believe me!! Louis Fisher told him, David Randan told him, Jonathan TURLEY told him, Bruce Fein told him ..

Get real everyone! We must keep on building up the momentum - I do it EVERY SINGLE DAY.

IMPEACH INDICT IMPRISON

We are going to end up with Dominionists in control rather than neocons in power if we don't keep up our DEMAND.

 Stay on top of the Sibel Edmonds story - more will be revealed. 

by ladybroadoak (38 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 390 comments) on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 2:39:42 PM
 

Conyers

Conyers is a shreud man, who has to deal with rude men.  Conyers has written books about impeachment, not to mention taken part in them.  I suspect that he is all to aware of the proper timing, the amount of and type of support he has as well as what he needs.

It is WE who need to be educated on the topic.  Buy his book "George Bush Vs. the Constitution"

Next question:  What do WE do, if the push to impeach fails to materialize?  Any thoughts? 

by InsuranceTeaseDOTcom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 6:13:02 PM
 

If the push to impeach fails to materialize.....

We should leave the country in protest.

And out of self-protection.

Because I can say from what very little experience I had glimpsing life behind the former Iron Curtain, that any country where wiretapping is wide-spread is a dangerous country. To the civilians, and not to the terrorists.

I am not pretending to know it all and again what I saw behind the Iron Curtain was only a glimpse. That little glimpse, however, was plenty enough.

Free speech-related death threats, anybody?

We aren't there yet, but the keyword here is "Yet".

 Time to get out now, while we still have freedom of travel.

by Kathryn Smith (93 articles, 2 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 361 comments) on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 2:31:51 AM
 

Conyers Talks the Talk

But apparently life is to good for him to personally  Walk the Walk.

Plus, if he goes after Bush he would probably not get any more free lap dances.

by Patrick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 3:54:40 PM
 

A Reason

From Rob's interview with Conyers, it seemed as if he said he was afraid of the media, controlled by the Republicans. He especially mentioned Fox News.

Conyers has survived so long in Congress not by being confrontational or outrageous or particularly courageous, but by being careful not to ruffle the powers-that-be too much, while being progressive enough that his Chicago constituency will continue to support him.

To lead impeachment hearings (as he pointed out, "I'm the Chairman," so he would have to lead them) would require a considerable amount of courage, not because Bush/Cheney are popular, but because they still have a lot of powerful friends who would consider their own interests at risk if Bush/Cheney were fully exposed. Among those interests, surely, would be Fox News. It could make Conyers' life very unpleasant.

Life has been pretty good to John Conyers. To launch impeachment would make life distinctly uncomfortable.

by Douglas Smyth (20 articles, 5 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments) on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 10:12:45 AM
 

Jail is the answer.

It will not be enough to just impeach Bush and Cheney. They must be jailed! They are murderers, thieves and liars. What do we do with people like that? We jail them or maybe execute them. I hate the death penalty but I think I would make an exception in their case.

Remember what they did to the kings in France when they were revolting against them? I think they chopped off their heads. Works for me!

 Conyers should think of his own legacy as a member of Congress. There has never been a time when so many citizens   were infuriated with Congress.

by Caronome (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 225 comments) on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 1:51:33 PM
 

Bush The Hostage Killer

There was a bank robbery and the guy was holding 100 hostages inside. They called the authorities, and the standoff was going on 3 weeks, when the President came in and told them to end it. They bombed the building and killed everyone inside, including the bank robber.

Is the President guilty of murdering all the hostages, before the robber made good on his attempt? And what about the bank robber, who apparantly had no gun, but a bag of wooden blocks thought to be a bomb!

Is the President guilty of murder, or is the Police force who the President will say did not carry out his instructions like he asked them to. So now the guys who were doing as they were told by the President are now being the scapegoat of the President. Is this the standard way they practice law in the United States?

Now I heard of a similar standoff with a country in the Middle East called Iraq. Thing is they knew the bank robber was holding people hostage, but people could not tell where he was at the moment. The US thought they were protecting the robber named Saddam Hussein, and so did torture to people to get them to tell where he was!

Some even killed innocent kids and families to make people fear for their lives, and thousands were killed. It is said more people died by this act than the people who died in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. It is said more people died than the people in China's Nanking massacred by the Japanese prior to WWII.

And yet America accepts these oultlaw acts because after all they did kill the robber, Saddam, and well its just too bad for those who died? Where is justice for the innocent killed? Is this how we win the hearts of the people?

I think it is pretty clear that America's President is guilty of a lie, when he killed more people than the bank robber.

There is an urgent need for justice and accoutability.

And then there is another problem. The 911 investigation.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 5:29:25 PM