Tell Conyers to Do His Job, Start the Impeachment Hearings!
We’re not the only ones urging you to call/write/badger Conyers.
(From Representative Press via uggabugga commenter Tom)
Gore Vidal On the Articles of Impeachment
There is probably no blunter critic of the American Right, neoconservatives, and, of course, George W Bush than Gore Vidal. For 50 years he has been skewering their lies, pretensions, cruelties, greed, and crass manipulations, as well as attempting to document their attacks on the constitution and everything America used to mean. In his 80’s, he’s still doing it.
On the Articles:
As I listened to Rep. Kucinich invoke the great engine of impeachment—he listed some 35 crimes by these two faithless officials—we heard, like great bells tolling, the voice of the Constitution itself speak out ringingly against those who had tried to destroy it.
Although this is the most important motion made in Congress in the 21st century, it was also the most significant plea for a restoration of the republic, which had been swept to one side by the mad antics of a president bent on great crime.
On the US media’s lack of interest in Kucinich’s bill:
as I listened with awe to Kucinich, I realized that no newspaper in the U.S., no broadcast or cable network, would pay much notice to the fact that a highly respected member of Congress was asking for the president and vice president to be tried for crimes which were carefully listed by Kucinich in his articles requesting impeachment.
But then I have known for a long time that the media of the U.S. and too many of its elected officials give not a flying fuck for the welfare of this republic, and so I turned, as I often do, to the foreign press for a clear report of what has been going on in Congress.
On Cheney and the Second Gulf War:
Naturally, I do not want to sound hard, but let me point out that even a banana Republican would be distressed to discover how much of our nation’s treasury has been siphoned off by our vice president in the interest of his Cosa Nostra company, Halliburton, the lawless gang of mercenaries set loose by this administration in the Middle East.
He’s barely scratching the surface.
(Via Avedon Carol)
An Open Letter to John Conyers
An Open Letter to Rep John Conyers, Chair, House Judiciary Committee
| 2138 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 p/202-225-3951 |
Dear John,
You must be more aware than most what a long, sad time the Bush Era represents. Lord knows you’ve investigated enough of it. It should be clear to you after reading Mr Kucinich’s articles of impeachment against President Bush that there have been serious breaches of ethical and lawful conduct by his administration and at his order throughout both his terms that certainly deserve consideration as “high crimes and misdemeanors”. In fact, no president we have ever had has so often and with such contempt violated the Contitution as has President Bush.
I realize that there are political risks involved, that the right wing will scream “Witch Hunt!” and accuse you of playing politics, that the Blue Dog conservatives in your own party will claim that it’s all a waste of time when Bush is leaving office soon anyway. What you need to understand is that impeachment isn’t even about Bush. It’s about the future of the country, the future of our democracy, the rule of law.
We have recent history to guide us in this matter. There was the pardoning of Richard Nixon by Gerald Ford which was supposed to “heal the wounds of the nation” so we could all “get past the unpleasantness”. There was the lack of any accountability in the Iran/Contra affair because Reagan was “too popular” and anyway it was over, the country needed to “heal” after the unpleasantness of the trials of the more minor figures like Ollie North. What did these two incidents teach us?
That the effort to slide past accountability for major transgressions against the Constitution didn’t “heal” anything or anybody. Instead they kept the wounds open, festering. Nixon and Reagan, Poindexter, et al almost literally got away with murder. The pardons left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, as if a bite of fish had begun to rot the moment it touched your tongue. Good people in both parties may have breathed a sigh of relief that the immediate wound was bandaged but they gradually became aware that beneath the bandage pus continued to ooze, the infection continued to poison us.
And look at the result. The same people involved in Iran/Contra, free of punishment or banishment, were invited back into the government by President Bush and promptly returned to the same lying, the same trickery and deceit, the same anti-Constitutional, anti-democratic actions that resulted in Iran/Contra 25 years ago.
A refusal to punish criminal acts is tantamount to an invitation to perpetrate them again. And again. And again. The nation will not survive another Bush. I’m not sure it’s going to survive this one.
You must be aware of how little regard anyone has in the Bush Administration of what Congress does or wants. If this were Russia, Bush would have dissolved both houses of the legislature long ago. They have contempt for you and everything you represent. You no doubt think you’re “rising above” petty political considerations by refusing to debate the articles of impeachment, not lowering yourself to their level. But in fact you are kowtowing to them, doing just what they want you to do.
Because without impeachment, without accountability, they know they can return in the next Republican administration and screw us – and our democracy – yet again.
The crimes of the Bush/Cheney Administration are so serious and so numerous that it is folly to let them slide. If the Constitution isn’t worth protecting, isn’t worth a little political risk-taking when it has been under such an assault for so long, then what is? The Constitution is America. If it can be treated as a disposable dishrag by a would-be tinpot dictator without any consequences accruing to the perp, then it is what Bush/Cheney have been treating it as if it is: a worthless piece of paper that can be ignored by the powerful any time it gets in their way.
That is not the America I grew up in, not the America most of us believe in. I don’t want my grandchildren to have to suffer through and perhaps even run from an America with laws no one thinks are worth protecting and defending when they’re attacked, overthrown. Most important, it is not the America the nation as a whole wants you to leave us with. If the risk is name-calling, what of it if the stakes are the Constitution itself, the very meaning and purpose of America?
You have nothing to fear and everything to gain by opening debate on Kucinich’s articles of impeachment. The country needs to “heal” but the only thing that will heal us is the sense that justice has been done. If you continue to stonewall even the possibility of impeaching the one president in our history who has richly deserved it, who has put us in the most deadly danger to serve his own selfish ends, who will then have escaped the justice only you can offer, then you are the one who will be responsible for infecting the wound. The sense that the Democrats have let the country down – again – will be pervasive, inescapable, if you want only to think about the politics of it, and you will have alienated the base that has kept you afloat up til now.
Is it worth it? Is silence worth it? Inaction when action is called for, cowardice when courage is needed? I know you have the courage, you’ve demonstrated it before. Please demonstrate it again.
Don’t let the Constitution down.
With great respect and some hope,
Mick Arran
Why Won’t Pelosi Impeach Bush?
It may be serendipity that Mark’s finished piece arrived today for last night Dennis Kucinich stood on the House floor and read 35 articles of impeachment against George W Bush.
“Resolved,” Kucinich then began, “that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate. …
“In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the following abuses of power…”
The first article Kucinich presented, and many that followed, regarded the war in Iraq: “Article 1 – Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq.”
The question, bluntly, isn’t “Will this effort go anywhere?” It won’t (Mark’s right about that) and everybody knows it. The question is, “Why won’t it go anywhere?” and that’s a much harder question to answer.
As you know by now, I don’t buy the standard progressive excuse that “the Democrats are cowards”. Their actions and statements betray far too much calculation for that. That doesn’t stop libs from continuing to comfort themselves with the theory (it’s way too uncomfortable to consider the alternative that it might be deliberate and the result of an inherent agreement by the Dem leadership with GOP goals and agendas). Just today, Glenn Greenwald, in characterizing the Dems’ behavior around the FISA debate, wrote:
[T]he hallmark of the Democratic Party leadership: they are afraid of looking weak, and the way they try to solve that problem is by being guided by their fears and allowing themselves to be bullied into complying with the President’s instructions. They actually still think that being bullied and always being afraid to take a stand will make them look strong. They have yet to figure out that it is that craven behavior which makes them look weak, and appropriately so, since it is weak.
But even Glenn may be beginning to get it at last; earlier he said this:
The reason the President, the GOP and the Rockefeller-led Senate Democrats won’t do that is because they don’t want to fix the problem of the expiring PAA orders. If they did want to, they could fix that problem in one day by extending their deadline. They want those PAA orders to expire so that they can exploit their looming expiration to scare the country — and, most of all, bully Congressional Democrats — into passing the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate FISA bill.
(emphasis in the original)
Which means that he has at least accepted the idea that the conservative Blue Dogs and corporate-owned stooges like Jay Rockefeller are selling us down the river on purpose. That’s something, anyway. What he – and most of the rest of the progressive blogosphere – have yet to come to terms with is that the sell-out is located primarily at the leadership level of the party. BD’s and CS’s couldn’t wield the influence they do as easily as they do if the leadership didn’t want them to or at the very least allow them to because there would be some benefit to them.
Which brings us back to impeachment. The benefit to the country of allowing the serious crimes of the Bush/Cheney cabal to go unlabeled let alone unpunished is nil. In fact, as I wrote this past Sunday (and have written a number of times before), the dangers are severe. If the Democrats were scared, they would still be talking about impeachment even if they didn’t do it (they loove to talk about doing things they have no intention of doing – it makes the base feel good and requires no sacrifice from them). Yet they aren’t talking about it. In fact they’re denigrating anybody who does. Kucinich, for example, is considered a kook. Why this silence? Why this fear, if that’s what it is?
If the fear is political – which is what everyone seems to believe despite all evidence to the contrary – it doesn’t make much sense. The benefits could have been enormous. A lame president withntghe lowest approval ratings in history being proven on the floor of the Congress to be a liar, manipulator and disrespector of the Constitution he swore to uphold and protect? Where’s the downside? In an election year impeachment proceedings might be a distraction to the Democratic campaign but would be devastating to the Republican, especially since McCain is running as George W Bush Jr.
Then there’s the disgust factor. The GOP is currently on the edge of becoming the most hated political party ever. Why hesitate to push them over that edge, send them careening down that cliff? Where’s the downside, Nancy?
Why won’t you do it? Are you afraid of blowback? Are you afraid a country in the dark, a country under ominous clouds, a country of people soaked with scandals, dripping with them, hopelessly tired of them, wouldn’t countenance yet another series, only this time not of corruption but of anti-democratic autocracy, the attempt to create a dictatorship?
Is that what you call an excuse for letting high crimes and misdemeanors pass without a murmur of protest from the so-called “opposition party”? How do you think that’s going to look to history? Or don’t you care? How are you going to feel when a resusitated GOP comes flying back for more? Or don’t you care?
What’s with you, Pelosi? Are you trying to prove that Rush is right when he calls the Democrats opportunistic cowards who don’t care about the good of the nation? If so, you’re going about it the right way.
Kucinich Impeachment Bill Gains a Co-Sponsor
There will be more about this, I’m sure, but Dennis Kucinich last night presented 35 articles of impeachment against Bush which the US press promptly ignored on the grounds that “It’s not news” since Nancy Pelosi has no intention of allowing them to be introduced or debated, much less proceed into an actual impeachment hearing.
“Resolved,” Kucinich then began, “that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate. …
“In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the following abuses of power…”
The first article Kucinich presented, and many that followed, regarded the war in Iraq: “Article 1 – Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq.”
Given that both Cynthia McKinney’s articles of impeachment against Bush and Kucinich’s articles against Dick Cheney introduced last year never went anywhere thanks to a DLC leadership team that doesn’t want to embarrass Bush (they have sooo much in common), maybe the news mavens have a point. Ah, but there’s a difference this time: Dennis has a co-sponsor.
Stalwart liberal Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) became the first member of Congress to co-sponsor Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s resolution calling for President Bush’s impeachment.
“President Bush deliberately created a massive propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq to the American people and the charges detailed in this impeachment resolution indicate an unprecedented abuse of executive power,” Wexler said in a news release. “A decision by Congress to pursue impeachment is not an option, it is a sworn duty. It is time for Congress to stand up and defend the Constitution against the blatant violations and illegalities of this Administration. Our Founding Fathers bestowed upon Congress the power of impeachment, and it is now time that we use it to defend the rule of law from this corrupt Administration.”
Better late than never. Is this a crack in the wall? Not really. Wexler isn’t well-known enough to have a defense so he will simply join Dennis as one of the crackpot Dems that Al From and Co are so contemptuous of. He will be dismissed by the media and his own colleagues. Don’t be surprised if references start showing up of the “Tweedledee & Tweedledum”, “Laurel & Hardy” variety.
But there’s no getting away from the fact that Wexler is absolutely right (which is why he must be dismissed as a kook). We have to use this opportunity to protect the Constitution from marauders like Bush/Cheney because if we don’t they will be back again, worse than this time. If the Constitution isn’t worth fighting for, what exactly is? If it isn’t worth a little of Nancy Pelosi’s precious time, what is? If it isn’t worth a little political risk-taking, what is?
Just how abominably shameful is this current crop of Demo’s, anyway?
There’s been a little disturbance in the Force on the innertubes around DK’s reading but it will soon die out. When it does (if not before) we’ll be right here looking at the articles, examining the evidence, and screaming bloody murder because Nancy Pelosi sold out. Dennis hasn’t put the articles online yet but he will, In the meantime, we’ll examine his case against Cheney as an appetizer.
Stay tuned.
Why a Truth & Reconciliation Commission Is Better Than Impeachment
Three weeks ago I asked Mark Gisleson of the late and lamented blog Norwegianity to write something on this issue. He didn’t think impeachment would ever happen for political reasons, but he had another suggestion – and this was 2 weeks before Richard Clarke….[MA]
by Mark Gisleson
Sunday, Mick made the case for impeaching George W. Bush. It was a great post. Impeachment would have been wonderful, but I’m afraid our new Congress still most closely resembles a halfway house where the inmates have overpowered the staff and corporate hookers come and go at all hours of the day and night.
No, Congress isn’t going to fix this for us because they don’t have the guts to cross the people who actually own them.
If we want justice, we will have to take that cup from Congress. We need a South African style Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Forgoing punishment for Bush’s heinous minions would be hard, but with no guarantee of more trials, I think it’s more important that the truth be set free. Mick’s OK with a truth and reconciliation commission, but he thinks we can have that and trials. You can’t. The point of a truth and reconciliation commission is to waive the trials so as to provide an incentive for the guilty parties to testify.
The rules are very simple: Testify truthfully, and you’re immune from prosecution. Lie under oath, and you’re not only guilty of perjury but can be tried for the crimes you didn’t confess to <i>and</i> the ones you did. Testimony must be made publicly, and every detail must be recorded and made available.
Sixteen years before Nelson Mandela called for this measure in South Africa, five marchers were killed by Klansmen and Nazis in Greensboro, North Carolina. Twenty-six years later, North Carolina followed Mandela’s example and formed their own Truth and Reconciliation Commission to heal the festering wounds from that terrible day. In Greensboro, the pain of the 1979 massacre had been greatly exacerbated by two criminal trials, both of which ended in acquittal for all the defendants. Adam Zucker made a documentary about the proceedings, Greensboro: Closer to the Truth.
North Carolina’s not the deep South, but still they couldn’t convict. How can we expect to try and convict war criminals like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush when a quarter of all Americans think they’re heroes? Wouldn’t it be better instead to have Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, etc., spilling their guts on live TV?
Making sure every American knows what happened since 9/11 is more important than sticking a lethal needle in Condeleeza Rice’s bony arm. Not as gratifying perhaps, but it is imperative that all Americans have the same understanding of what we’ve been through, and why we can never let this happen again.
Congress could set this up to run independently (with maybe a little help from the DOJ). Subpoenas wouldn’t be necessary since all testimony is voluntary (but if you don’t testify you might end up getting tried).
It would be easy to dismiss this as a liberal fantasy, but assembling a truth and reconciliation commission isn’t just my idea. Richard Clarke also thinks it’s a good idea:
CLARKE: Well, there may be some other kind of remedy. There may be some sort of truth and reconciliation commission process that’s been tried in other countries, South Africa, Salvador and what not, where if you come forward and admit that you were in error or admit that you lied, admit that you did something, then you’re forgiven. Otherwise, you are censured in some way.
Now, I just don’t think we can let these people back into polite society and give them jobs on university boards and corporate boards and just let them pretend that nothing ever happened when there are 4,000 Americans dead and 25,000 Americans grieviously wounded, and they’ll carry those wounds and suffer all the rest of their lives.
A search for “truth and reconciliation commission” turns up over 7,000 matches on Google Blog Search. The idea is in play, and I think it’s worth our time to push to introduce this solution to the rest of the country.
Let’s face it. The chances of getting a successful impeachment through this bought and paid for Congress are less than slight, barring Bush invading Iran before the election. Likewise, the chances of master compromiser Barack Obama shipping Bush and Cheney off to The Hague seem very slim to none.
A truth and reconciliation commission’s beauty is that it does not wave a stick so much as dangle a carrot, the carrot being a promise not to use the stick. When dyed in the wool neoconservatives are in the docket confessing to this administration’s sins, it will put some remedies into play much, much sooner than if we went for convictions and then had to deal with the attending multiple-year cable news funfest as the world’s best lawyers and legal minds inflicted delay after delay upon the system.
Another benefit would be that the DOJ wouldn’t get bogged down at a time when it will have to move quickly to avoid the statute of limitations being exceeded in countless cases of cynically well-timed perjury and corruption.
Truth and reconciliation commissions are, by their very nature, very camera friendly. Enabling legislation should mandate PBS to cover every bit of major testimony from gavel to gavel. And give them some money so they can do the proper research and find some experts who can explain what each witness did, what they saw, and what their testimony means.
Best of all, such testimony could also come from network executives caught between conniving corporate owners and increasingly propagandized news programming. Contractors could talk about the obscene prices charged, the size of the kickbacks, and who they went to. Frightened secretaries could spell out the degree to which the administration and Blackwater colluded.
Coverage could be shown in Iraq, as well, helping in some small way to let them see that we were wrong, and that we now know we were wrong. I think such a commission would comfort the entire world, letting other countries know that real small ‘d’ democrats are in charge again.
