This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."
Despite all this, Conyers has not ventured beyond flaccid rhetoric. White House minions no doubt poke fun at the talking-shirt-cum-fancy-tie to which Conyers has reduced himself. He has given them—and the rest of us—little reason to take him, or his committee, seriously.
But now…now with the wide attention drawn by the serious revelations in Ron Suskind's latest book regarding White House misuse of the CIA, John Conyers wants us to believe he is really serious this time. I'm sorry, but this conjures up the familiar image of Lucy setting up the football for another attempted kick by Charlie Brown.
On Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" on Aug. 14, Conyers said he was "the third day into the most critical investigation of the entire Bush administration." And in order to demonstrate his seriousness of purpose Conyers said, "We're starting our work, and then we're doing it in a period where Congress is in recess. I'm calling everybody back."
Many of those listening to Conyers assumed he meant Committee members. Not so. Others thought he must have meant key staff. Not so, either. There must be something in the water here in Washington that prevents people—even formerly honest people—from distinguishing between exaggeration and a lie.
As if to prepare us beforehand for still more timidity and ineptitude, Conyers rang changes on an all too familiar theme. He complained that he is "maybe the most frustrated person attempting to exercise the oversight responsibilities that I have on Judiciary"—a clear reference to how he has let himself be diddled by the White House…and an equally clear sign that he is likely to remain diddle-able.
If the Constitution Is Good Enough For Pakistan…
Tell us, John: if Pakistan can move forward to impeach a sitting president and force his resignation, why can't you? You must recall voting for those three articles of impeachment on that momentous day, July 27, 1974, and how on August 9 Nixon waved good-bye from his helicopter to the few remaining friends lined up on the White House lawn. You were proud to be part of the triumph of our Constitution in 1974. Is being chairman of Judiciary simply too demanding at your age—many years beyond what lawyers used to call the age of "statutory senility."
Without any apparent tongue in cheek, Tuesday's New York Times editorial pointed a sanctimonious finger at Musharraf's abuse of power, noting that "the presidency must also be stripped of the special dictatorial powers that Mr. Musharraf seized for himself, including the power to suspend civil liberties." The Times noted, "President Bush underwrote Mr. Musharraf's dictatorship, but it said nothing of the example Bush himself has set in such matters—including rigging elections, as Musharraf did.
It seems the height of irony that the relatively young and fragile democracy of Pakistan has been able to successfully exercise the power of impeachment inherited from the framers of the U.S. Constitution, while the constipated Conyers-captained congressional committee cannot.
Under Pakistan's constitution, the country has a bicameral legislature with 100 senators and over 300 representatives in the National Assembly. The president is head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces. Sound familiar?
The difference is that, even though impeachment of a Pakistani president requires a two-thirds majority in the legislature, Pakistani lawmakers summoned the courage to check Musharraf's unconstitutional accretion of power by using their constitutional power to impeach. And, facing almost certain impeachment, Musharraf resigned.
In sorry contrast to your Pakistani counterparts, John, you have chickened out. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
The original version of this article appeared on Consortiumnews.com
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
