The challenge represents a strategem for dealing with those Republicans, and to those in the right-wing propaganda machine, whose automatic attack on the speaker and defense of the Bushites is entirely predictable.
"To those of you who would deny the truth of these charges," our speaker would say, "I challenge you to put my charges and your denials to the test. Let us have no more of your propaganda, heedless of facts and intended only to mislead the American people. Let us instead conduct a kind of trial --to be nationally televised-- to see who has the truth on his side."
And with that there would be some suitable proposal for how this public hearing, or trial, would be conducted. This proposal would presumably include procedures for examining and cross-examining witnesses, expert and otherwise, and establish some appropriate limitations on the length of the proceedings (perhaps a week). And it would indicate the nature of the jury that would eventually judge the matter-- either a representative group of average Americans empaneled for the purpose, or a large sampling of public opinion.
It would be a "put your money where your mouth is" laying down of the gauntlet, setting up the playing field to block the Bushites from getting away with their usual dishonest, propagandistic response to every confrontation with the truth. If the Bushites' advocates remain silent, then the indictment will stand as a powerful statement, unanswered. But if they speak up they will be pressed to put their defense to the test.
I am confident how that test would turn out: with any hearing conducted according to procedures designed to establish the truth, the Bushites do not stand a chance.
There could be one additional component to this "put your money where your mouth is" challenge.
The speaker(s) --Senator Leahy, and/or whoever-- could raise the stakes thus: "I challenge you, who would defend these criminal and corrupt leaders, to put yourselves on the line, as I will also do. I feel so confident that what I say is true, and that the American people can be persuaded of its truth, that I will pledge that should I lose the case that we argue before this jury of Americans, I will give up my position in the Senate and go into retirement. I/we will pledge that in exchange for your also pledging to put your positions on the line also.
"If you hold elective office, you would --if you lose-- give up your seat. If you are a talk-show host, you would --if you lose-- give up your program. (Etc.)
"Enough of the lies and the propaganda that have ruled this dark period of our history. Let's have it out in a proceeding designed to disclose the truth to the American people. And let no one step forward into this arena who is not prepared to put his money where his mouth is."
BY-PASSING THE SUPPOSED PROBLEMS WITH IMPEACHMENT
The reasons given for not impeaching these Bushite criminals may not be persuasive to those of us who think the oath to "defend the Constitution" is supposed to mean what an oath is supposed to mean. But those reasons are nonetheless apparently major considerations for many of the politicians who took that oath. And the present proposed alternative manages to by-pass many of those political concerns:
BOTTOM LINE
"To those of you who would deny the truth of these charges," our speaker would say, "I challenge you to put my charges and your denials to the test. Let us have no more of your propaganda, heedless of facts and intended only to mislead the American people. Let us instead conduct a kind of trial --to be nationally televised-- to see who has the truth on his side."
And with that there would be some suitable proposal for how this public hearing, or trial, would be conducted. This proposal would presumably include procedures for examining and cross-examining witnesses, expert and otherwise, and establish some appropriate limitations on the length of the proceedings (perhaps a week). And it would indicate the nature of the jury that would eventually judge the matter-- either a representative group of average Americans empaneled for the purpose, or a large sampling of public opinion.
It would be a "put your money where your mouth is" laying down of the gauntlet, setting up the playing field to block the Bushites from getting away with their usual dishonest, propagandistic response to every confrontation with the truth. If the Bushites' advocates remain silent, then the indictment will stand as a powerful statement, unanswered. But if they speak up they will be pressed to put their defense to the test.
There could be one additional component to this "put your money where your mouth is" challenge.
The speaker(s) --Senator Leahy, and/or whoever-- could raise the stakes thus: "I challenge you, who would defend these criminal and corrupt leaders, to put yourselves on the line, as I will also do. I feel so confident that what I say is true, and that the American people can be persuaded of its truth, that I will pledge that should I lose the case that we argue before this jury of Americans, I will give up my position in the Senate and go into retirement. I/we will pledge that in exchange for your also pledging to put your positions on the line also.
"If you hold elective office, you would --if you lose-- give up your seat. If you are a talk-show host, you would --if you lose-- give up your program. (Etc.)
"Enough of the lies and the propaganda that have ruled this dark period of our history. Let's have it out in a proceeding designed to disclose the truth to the American people. And let no one step forward into this arena who is not prepared to put his money where his mouth is."
BY-PASSING THE SUPPOSED PROBLEMS WITH IMPEACHMENT
The reasons given for not impeaching these Bushite criminals may not be persuasive to those of us who think the oath to "defend the Constitution" is supposed to mean what an oath is supposed to mean. But those reasons are nonetheless apparently major considerations for many of the politicians who took that oath. And the present proposed alternative manages to by-pass many of those political concerns:
** This proposal does not require that Congress focus on impeachment at the supposed expense of "taking care of the public's business." Should there actually be a public proceeding on national television, it would presumably be a specially created forum that would operate outside the auspices of Congress.
** This purpose of this approach is merely to present the truth to the American people, and not to effect the removal of the Bushites from office. It is a defense of the soul of the American democracy, not a play for power. The focus on the importance of the truth --and of repudiating the people and forces that have made this assault on American law and values-- makes it irrelevant that this presidency will soon be over anyway.
** Because the proceedings and the rendering of a verdict --should the challenge be taken up-- would be outside the precincts of Congress, we would not have the spectacle of our representatives voting along party lines. This should help avoid the (bogus) accusation that what is happening is a matter of partisan politics.
BOTTOM LINE
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
