Conyers and the Impeachment Table By David Swanson

[Demeter]

OpEdNews

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_070216_conyers_and_the_impe.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 16, 2007



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 [phone] or [e-mail]



Authors Website: http://www.davidswanson.org

Authors Bio: DAVID SWANSON is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.


Back

[sam sarrha]

1. this is Bull Shit... we need to MAKE SURE he CAN'T attack IRAN..! STOP HIM.!! BEFORE he does!

this isnt an 'IF' situation.. it will be tooooo late if he does.. you wont be able to call back the Dogs of Total World Religious war..!!!

Israel will probably nuke every Islamic population center in the Middle East they consider a center of threat....to raise an army.. russia and china will retaliate

and we will be screwed in an atomic winter.. and when the smoke clears every surviving Muslem will be at war on us for ever.. what are left of us

[pat_k]

2. "These issues do not require any investigating. " is key

People are defending Nancy "off the table" Pelosi by asserting that "investigations will uncover bad things, and then they'll impeach."

Nothing they "uncover" can beat what's already on the public record. The chances that some "new revelation" will be "big enough" to overcome their impeachophobia are nil.

Their duty is clear. Truth has a power of its own. It always wins in time. We can speed the process. The more of us out here chipping away at their rationalizations for inaction, the faster we'll see those rationalizations crumble. The naysayers in our own ranks are a big hurdle. Chipping away "out here" is as important as challenging our leaders. Every action, no matter how small we may think it is, makes a difference. Even a single conversation can have incredible ripple effects we never see.

Over the past four decades, Rep. John Conyers has been our champion. Unfortunately, in the current crisis, his refusal to move past "investigation" to "impeachment" is devastating. When Chairman Conyers conducts "investigations" instead of "impeachment hearings" he is saying "we don't have a case."

This White House; this Commander in Chief, has cried wolf so many times that no one believes a word they say. All their "proof" is rejected simply because they are the source of it. They've rendered themselves incapable of defending the nation. That alone is more than enough.

Chairman Conyers, there is nothing to investigate. This is not Watergate, where you had to uncover the cover-up. Bush and Cheney are attacking the Constitution in plain sight. It is time. We need you. We need a champion to demand impeachment NOW.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k">Get Up, Stand Up!

[Independent_Liberal]

4. Well said, pat_k!

:patriot:

[Independent_Liberal]

3. K&R!

[Kurovski]

5. We must keep calling our representitives,

impeach, indict, imprison.

K&R.

[Peace Patriot]

6. They've made a deal. No invasion of Iran, no impeachment.

That's what it looks like to me. And maybe it's the best they could do.

When Pelosi the other day said she "takes Bush at his word" (re Iran), I think it may be literally true.

That could be one of the reasons Rumsfeld is gone. He wouldn't agree. Although I've got him figured for the mastermind at the center of the onion of Traitorgate coverup stories. (Fitzgerald has gotten past one of them--that Rove did it for political reasons; he's now at the next layer, that Cheney did it for political reasons; I think the center of it is that Rumsfeld did it for strategic war reasons--trying to plant nukes in Iraq to be "discovered" by the US troops who were "hunting" for them--the CIA counter-proliferation network, that Plame headed, got in the way, so Cheney & Co. were tasked with "ridding" Rumsfeld of this "meddlesome priest"--outing the whole bunch of them (the entire network), and Cheney/Libby have had to deal with the political/legal fallout ever since, of Rumsfeld's failure to get the WMDs planted. This, or a number of other rotten corpses at the Pentagon, could also be why Rumsfeld is gone, in addition to a bargain of Iran vs. impeachment.)

But back to Conyers. I think there are some "good guys" in Congress, although virtually all of them now owe their power to Diebold/ES&S. But there are well-meaning, courageous people who would have gotten elected anyway. (It's just that they can now be un-elected at the word of extremist rightwing billionaires like Howard Ahmanson, initial funder of ES&S). Then there are some real cynical corrupt types--like Christopher Dodd (responsible for Diebold/ES&S taking over our election system), and Hillary Clinton (slimy as they come on the war and on corporate rule). The "good guys" (and I count Pelosi among them) have the problem of dislodging a fascist coup. Quite literally, that's what happened in 2004. It is not easy to do, and may be extremely dangerous. So I think they bargained with Bush--Rumsfeld has to go, no war on Iran, wind the Iraq war down, and we won't impeach. The "bad guys" are capitalizing on the situation. Their sole interest is political--how to use the situation to enhance their power. So they don't mind changing positions on Iraq and "debating" it. They get to score points (however hypocritical they are--Clinton and Dodd being prime examples). But nothing much changes. (The sole benefit to us is that we don't have WW III. But if that was Pelosi's choice, I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing.)

The "good guys" also have the problem that--in addition to Diebold/ES&S influence in the House--only 1/3 of the Senate was up for reelection in 2006. The people have had no chance to outvote the machines on 2/3 of the Senate. So there are a lot of Bushite "pod people" and collusive Democrats still ensconced. Their job is to prevent impeachment, and prevent any serious consideration of the opinion of 74% of the American people (end the war!). They showed that today. Harry Reid couldn't even get a debate--and probably should never have called for one. (It serves the warmongers--this Saturday drama--by helping to take the sting out of the House vote yesterday).

Like others, I was shocked when the first words out of Pelosi's mouth, after the American people gave her such a big mandate to end the war, and end Bush, were "Impeachment is off the table." But Bush can count votes, too (or somebody at the WH can). The House might be able to pass a bill of impeachment, the Senate will shoot it down.

Congress should OF COURSE have impeached Bush long ago. The Diebold I Congress was incapable of it (crawling with Bush "pod people"). The violation alone of Congress' own powers--with the executive "signing statements"--was cause to be rid of Bush. And the list of egregious violations of the Constitution is very long and gravely serious--torturing prisoners, detention without trial, domestic spying, treason (outing CIA agents), outrageous thievery in Iraq, to name a few. Putting US troops in harm's way, in the manner that this has been done, is also treasonable, in my opinion. And what was done to tens of thousands of Iraqis is just plain murder.

So the question to any reasonable mind is: How could they NOT impeach? But when you look at this a little differently--some "good guys" in a not very strong Congress (seriously compromised election system) trying to deal with a fascist coup, with half of their own party having been in collusion on the fascist coup's war--I think we can begin to see what's really going on at that level of politics. There is also the problem--on war issues--that many of the people still in Congress violated their oaths of office when they gave away their power to declare war to Bush and Cheney. They are not about to indict themselves. They played the two-faced game of "letting George do it."

The obstacles to true representation of the interests of the American people in Congress are very big. Many Congress members are corrupt. Many were put in power specifically to prevent these grave abuses from being punished and stopped. I think it's a mistake to expect much in these circumstances--although we should never stop pressuring them--and it's an even bigger mistake to get all depressed and demoralized when they disappoint. This system is designed to depress and demoralize ordinary citizens and grass roots activists. It is extremely corrupt and targeted against our interests. Restoring our democracy is going to be a very difficult, long term project. Here are three precepts I've seen at work, in country after country, in the awesome democracy movement that has swept South America:

1. TRANSPARENT vote counting.
2. Grass roots organization.
3. Think big.

It's not only the war that we should be ending. It's the monstrous war machine that made it possible--a cancerous growth on American democracy and a standing temptation to fascist tyrants. The military budget should be cut by 90%, down to a true defensive posture. No more wars of choice!

It isn't just regulation of corporations that is needed. We need to bust up ALL corporate monopolies--including corporate news monopolies--and pull the charters of the bad actor corporations and seize their assets for the public good.

It's not just a "paper trail" or a meager audit that we want in our elections. We want completely transparent vote counting--vote counting that everyone can see and understand, vote counting that is restored to the PUBLIC VENUE, with NO private corporate interests involved.

That's what I mean by thinking big. Use FDR as the model for bold thinking. An entirely NEW Deal!

We have a lot of work to do--but if our goals are small, and if we permit people in power to set our goals, we will never get anywhere. We need to set BIG goals--whether locally or nationally--state them boldly, and pursue them relentlessly. Our overarching goal should be restoration of majority rule, so that the interests of the majority are at the heart of every proposal. And we, the people, apparently have to do this on our own, with no great leaders, no "knights on shining white horses," and with the help of only a few good people at the top our party. We need to re-create American democracy from the bottom up. Nobody is going to do it for us.

[Demeter]

7. I'd Hate To Think That This IS What Happened

If Congress negotiated our birthright to impeach away for a temporary lull in the warmongering, then we are getting much less than what we paid for. They should have gotten the hell out of Iraq, too, for that kind of deal.

If it is so, then should there be some kind of "incident" and Oops!! We're in Iran!; then I hope to hell Impeachment follows immediately.

[pat_k]

8. Yep. It's lunacy to think bushcheney would be stopped by any "agreement". . . .

. . .Our common contract, the Constitution. The consent of the governed. The sanctity of our elections. Revered treaties. Federal statute. Overwhelming electoral repudiation. They willfully and blantantly, violate, ignore, and corrupt them all to accomplish their immediate ends -- future consequences be damned. If the Congressional leadership thinks they can make a "deal" with these lawless lunatics, their denial of reality and insanity approaches that of this White House.

Violent force is the only thing they understand. Only our Constitutonal "gun" -- impeachment -- can stop them.

[Pryderi]

9. This should have gotten more than 10 votes. Anyone pressuring their congress critter?

We need Mr. Conyers to start the investigations.