Conyers resolution for impeachment is about Iraq not illegal wiretaps

[Marleyb]

I was just reading David Swanson's article which is really good about how we need to push for impeachment now, not after election 2006 and he makes alot of good points...

Some commentators say we can't push impeachment until after non-Republicans win a majority in Congress.

This makes no sense to me, because first we need a reason to vote the Democrats a majority. You don't get a majority without offering people a reason to vote you one.

If 85 percent of Democrats want candidates who stand for impeachment, impeachment could help win a majority. These two goals are not opposed, but impeachment may need to come first if winning Congress is to be achieved.

Winning Congress for the Democrats may or may not be needed in order to impeach Bush and Cheney. It also may or may not lead to impeachment. This will depend on what sort of Democrats we elect, how we pressure them once they're in, and whether we've built a massive campaign for impeachment that is already up and running once they get there.

I have been thinking this for quite some time, that it is in the pushing for impeachment and the upholding of our constitution that we win back congress. Not by being wimps until the election hoping for the best.

but this is where it all goes wrong...

We need to demand right now that they sign on (as 23 of them have) to H Res 635, John Conyers' bill to create an investigation that will make recommendations on impeachment.

First of all we don't need a resolution for a committee to investigate, the facts are all out on the table. We need him to introduce articles of impeachment(ask Carl Sheeler for his excellent write-up) and then let us use our voices that demand our representatives join in.

Secondly, Conyers needs to introduce articles of impeachment over the illegal spying which cannot be denied. This is the issue that everyone is concerned about and paying attention to. This is the impeachable offence that we can all unite around, republicans and democrats, because there is no denying what happened. Bush admitted to an impeachable offence on national TV.

So my question...why did Conyers introduce this now, and not after the downing street memo? Isn't it sort of misleading to pretend you are doing something about the illegal wiretap issue when you are not?

[OneBlueSky]

1. for reasons I still can't comprehend, most Democrats seem . . .

terrified of taking on BushCo -- on ANY issue . . . hell, they won't even publically state that "Bush lied" when it's obvious to everyone that he did . . . most will not state that the Iraq war was wrong, a mistake, or even misguided . . . they won't question the "official" 9/11 story even though it is contradicted by most available evidence . . . and most won't go near the issue of election fraud . . .

I just don't understand it . . . are they THAT afraid of BushCo? . . . are their corporate sponsors keeping THAT tight a rein on them? . . . are they THAT out of touch with the majority of the American public? . . . inquiring minds want to know . . .

[Marleyb]

3. we are dealing with the mob here

and I can understand why they would be afraid....but if they all stand up together, they can't take them all out.

But if the democrats are in on it, looks like WE are all going to have to stand up together...and soon!

[Marleyb]

2. I know I know, no one wants to say anything about Conyers

considering he is the only one who appears to be fighting for us...but what the hell is going on?

I just can't get behind pushing for a committee to investigate Iraq when this all just came out about illegal wiretaps. We should be going with the momentum ya know....

We just need one representative ONE REPRESENTATIVE to introduce articles of impeachment and then we can all scream as loudy as we did with Alito LOUDER until they do their constitutional duty dammit!