OpEdNews Op Eds

Conyers and the Impeachment Table

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Become a Fan
  (113 fans)
By David Swanson

Congressman John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has used the following rhetoric repeatedly in recent weeks:

"George Bush has the habit of firing military leaders who tells him the Iraq war is failing. But let me tell you something. He can't fire you. He can't fire us. But we can fire him! We can fire him!"

You can watch Conyers say those words to a crowd of 500,000 on January 27th in this video:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/18494

He said the same thing at an event a few days later, and went further, suggesting that he will favor impeachment if Bush attacks Iran. Here's the audio:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/18457

Meanwhile, of all the endless lists of crimes and abuses committed by Bush and Cheney, Conyers is using his committee to "investigate" the two easiest ones to impeach on: the illegal spying that Bush has openly confessed to, and the dictatorial signing statements, which are readily available on the White House website. These issues do not require any investigating. They do require publicizing. And if Congress finds the collective nerve to move forward on them, they are the most likely to be carried through to a successful impeachment. They are the crimes in which Congress Members have been least complicit, for which the evidence is most apparently and simply indisputable, and prosecution of which least threatens powerful corporate interests.

Say what you want about Conyers, he's not lacking in intelligence or wisdom. He's lacking only in sufficient public pressure to move a group of brave Congress Members forward. Conyers won't step out on his own. And a group of Members won't ask him to lead unless there is a sufficient groundswell of support. But citizen activists should recognize that they are already having an impact. Public pressure is the only reason Conyers is giving the speeches he's giving, and the only reason he's committing to moving on impeachment if Bush attacks Iran. Conyers does not actually believe an attack on Iran would be any more impeachable an offense than was the attack on Iraq. After all, Conyers has published a lengthy report on the impeachable offenses involved in the attack on Iraq:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/constitutionincrisis

So, when Conyers goes on Democracy Now as he did on Friday or on any other radio show and claims that he opposes impeachment and that by "we can fire him" he means that we can elect someone new when Bush's term runs out, it's important to understand that you are listening to Conyers the wily partisan politician operating under Pelosi's heel, not Conyers the patriotic prosecutor who recognizes better than anyone else the fatal wound that will be given to our republic if 2009 arrives with no one having been impeached.

Conyers should be thanked for the groundwork he's laid, applauded for the stance he's taken on Iran, and encouraged to step up and serve his country before a single bomb hits Iranian soil. And he should be asked to look very closely at the evidence against Vice President Cheney that has emerged in the Libby trial. This is evidence that Pelosi had not seen when she ordered impeachment "off the table." And it is evidence against a different person from the one she said not to impeach.

Conyers can be reached at (202) 225-5126 or John.Conyers@mail.house.gov

 

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Impeach

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

http://davidswanson.org

David Swanson is the author of "When the World Outlawed War," "War Is A Lie" and "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union." He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for the online (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
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.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Feith Dares Obama to Enforce the Law

Obama's Open Forum Opens Possibilities

Public Forum Planned on Vermont Proposal to Arrest Bush and Cheney

Did Bush Sr. Kill Kennedy and Frame Nixon?

Holder Asked to Prosecute Blankenship

Eleven Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
7 people are discussing this page, with 11 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
is simply the backing of the Democratic Party lead... by ardee D. on Friday, Feb 16, 2007 at 7:29:54 PM
The problem isn't Conyers...or that Conyers rallie... by Eliot Gould on Friday, Feb 16, 2007 at 9:14:59 PM
even if they wind up not getting enough votes? Or ... by Richard Mynick on Friday, Feb 16, 2007 at 9:46:30 PM
It matters not at all whether there are votes enou... by ardee D. on Saturday, Feb 17, 2007 at 9:45:03 AM
Impeachment proceedings would force the mountain o... by John Perry on Saturday, Feb 17, 2007 at 10:57:08 AM
As the Impeachment evidence mounted, so would the ... by Timothy V. Gatto on Saturday, Feb 17, 2007 at 12:27:16 PM
as neither was removed from office. If anythin... by Steven Leser on Saturday, Feb 17, 2007 at 2:48:30 PM
Tired rant really, Steven. The votes , as anyone m... by ardee D. on Sunday, Feb 18, 2007 at 9:36:12 AM
That got hmm, lets see, 56 votes in the senate to ... by Steven Leser on Sunday, Feb 18, 2007 at 8:58:20 PM
Point one, the antisurge vote in the House picked ... by ardee D. on Monday, Feb 19, 2007 at 6:27:41 PM
TO: Publisher, "In My Opinion" Newsletter ... by LarryWBryant on Saturday, Feb 17, 2007 at 5:38:15 PM