Send your tax rebate checks to these people with "FOR IMPEACHMENT" on them, and send photocopies of the checks to these people.
Resist Election Madness.
Tell Congress this.
Sing our theme song.
The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis
Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law
United States v. George W. Bush et al.
The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism
Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush
The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens
The Case for Impeachment
Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney
George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying
Verdict and Findings of Fact
Impeach Bush: A Funny Li'l Graphical Novel About the Worstest Pres'dent in the History of Forevar
Pretensions to Empire: Notes on the Criminal Folly of the Bush Admin- istration
The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America
Request for Special Counsel
Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2008-05-05 19:39.
To
Attorney General Michael Mukasey
Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Request for and Report in Support of Appointment of Outside Special
Counsel to Investigate the Bush Administration’s Statements that Iraq Had
Sought Uranium for a Nuclear Weapon, which Violated the Criminal Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 18 U.S.C. § 371 that Prohibit Making False and
Fraudulent Statements to Congress and Obstructing It’s Functions
Submitted by
Francis T. Mandanici
Attorney At Law
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| specialcounsel.pdf | 410.6 KB |
"Should Have..." John Conyers Not Waiting For The DOJ
No, Conyers is waiting for his next democratic president, Barack Obama, to be safely sworn into office, before he can schedule an impeachment hearing to consider the "yellow cake" lies as well as the other 935 lies crying out for investigation, impeachment, and prosecution leading up to the war in "Iraq-The War Card-The Center for Public Integrity-orchestrated deception on the path to war" at www.publicintegrity.org
False Pretenses
Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith
President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.
It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.
In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).
The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.
Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:
On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.
In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."
On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."
On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."
The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.
It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable U.N. presentation. For all 935 false statements, including when and where they occurred, go to the search page for this project; the methodology used for this analysis is explained here.
In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.
The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, "independent" validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq.
The "ground truth" of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005, with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: "It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power."
Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual "ground truth" regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who's Who of domestic agencies.
On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials, have publicly — and in some cases vociferously — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this nation's allies on their way to war.
Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government's pre-war intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of the officials — Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz — have testified before Congress about Iraq.
Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.
Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?
About Us
Research Tools
Newsletters
Projects
Home
The Waxman Letter
The Waxman Letter of March 17, 2003
This is important because it is incontrovertible proof that the President was informed before he invaded Iraq, that the intelligence he was using to justify his invasion was severely questioned by a member of Congress. The President did not even choose to respond to Congressman Waxman’s letter delivered two days before the war. The Valerie Plame affair was further evidence that the reason for war was questioned before the fact and ignored by the President and his Administration.
http://www.house.gov/waxman/text/admin_iraq_march_17_let.htm
On March 17, 2003, two days before the invasion of Iraq Congressman Henry Waxman delivered a letter to President Bush.
“I am writing regarding a matter of grave concern. Upon your order, our armed forces will soon initiate the first preemptive war in our nation’s history. The most persuasive justification for this war is that we must act to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons.
In the last ten days, however it has become incontrovertibly clear that a key piece of evidence that you and other Administration officials have cited regarding Iraq’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax. What’s more, the Central Intelligence Agency questioned the veracity of the evidence at the same time you and other Administration officials were citing it in public statements. This is a breach of the highest order, and the American people are entitled to know how it happened.
As you know, I voted for the congressional resolution condemning Iraq and authorizing the use of force. Despite serious misgivings, I supported the resolution because I believed congressional approval would significantly improve the likelihood of effective U.N. action. Equally important, I believed that you had access to reliable intelligence information that merited deference.
Like many other members, I was particularly influenced by your views about Iraq’s nuclear intentions. Although chemical and biological weapons can inflict casualties, no argument for attacking Iraq is as compelling as the possibility of Saddam Hussein brandishing nuclear bombs. That, obviously, is why the evidence in this area is so crucial, and why so many have looked to you for honest and credible information on Iraq’s nuclear capability.
The evidence in question is correspondence that indicates that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an African country, Niger. For several months, this evidence has been a central part of the U.S. case against Iraq. On December 19, the State Department filed a response to Iraq’s disarmament declaration to the U.N. Security Council. The State Department response stated: ‘The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger.’ A month later, in your State of the Union address, you stated: ‘The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities or uranium from Africa.’ Defense Secretary Rumsfeld subsequently cited the evidence in briefing reporters.
It has now been conceded that this evidence was a forgery. On March 7, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported that the evidence that Iraq sought nuclear materials from Niger was ‘not authentic.’ As subsequent media accounts indicated, the evidence contained ‘crude errors,’ such as a ‘childlike signature’ and the use of stationary from a military government in Niger hat has been out of power for over a decade.
Even more troubling, however, the CIA, which has been aware of this information since 2001, has never regarded the evidence as reliable. The implications of this fact are profound: it means that a key part of the case you have been building against Iraq is evidence that your own intelligence experts at the Central Intelligence Agency do not believe is credible.
It is hard to imagine how this situation could have developed. The two most obvious explanations—knowing deception or unfathomable incompetence—both have immediate and serious implications. It is thus imperative that you address this matter without delay and provide an alternative explanation, if there is one.”
The entire letter is available at the link above. Congressman Waxman, like Cindy Sheehan, is still waiting for an answer to his questions.
Nick Egnatz
NW Indiana Veterans For Peace
Conyers is a joke
Conyers is a joke - what more can we say oh i know we can say Conyers is a patsy...
Darwin26
Viet Nam drafted Combat Veteran WIA '68
Co-State Coordinator PDA Montana
Billings Peace Seeker, member
MPFI, partner
PDA Fair Trade & Impeachment Teams
www.pdamontana.org
www.williamsstudiogallery.com
Conyers is far more than just a joke
His continued refusal to initiate the impeachment process makes him willingly complicit in the crimes of the Bush administration.
Some members of Congress might be able to sidestep charges of complicity with Bushco by claiming ignorance, but not John Conyers.
He literally wrote the book detailing the multitude of impeachable offenses committed by the Bush administration. It's called "Constitution in Crisis." The report that was made into the book can be easily found on this site under "Key Documents."
Of course that was two years ago, before he became House Judiciary Chairman and fell under the thumb of the first female House mob boss.
Things can hardly get more ridiculous when the man responsible for initiating the impeachment process is selling a book that impeccably details Bushco's impeachable offenses, while at the same time refusing to bring accountability for them.
The only logical explanation for Conyers' refusal to stand up to Pelosi and hold Bushco accountable is that he now prefers ignorant party politics to honoring his oath.
The "we don't have the votes" argument is a hopeless fraud.
The commencement of impeachment proceedings is not dependent on whether the Judiciary Chairman or anyone else thinks the votes will be there for imeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate. It is dependent on THE EXISTENCE OF CRIMES AGAINST OUR CONSTITUTION COMMITTED BY THOSE SWORN TO UPHOLD IT.
Which, of course, includes Conyers. For as long as he refuses to act, he must be seen as complicit in the crimes of the Bush administration.
Latest video commentary:
"John Conyers Brings On the Deja Vu"
4/30/08
...And Pelosi is actually a War Crimes Strategist
Your indictment of Conyers is right on, and Pelosi has sacrificed the Constitution for "political strategy". That strategy, combined with Conyers' deliberate cooperation constitute a "Conspiracy to Commit War Crimes" and "Conspiracy to Cover Up War Crimes After the Fact". These High Crimes by Pelosi and Conyers is covered under RICO.
So what are we supposed to do to file a RICO suit?
ixoxi
Whining is not winning votes for impeachment
Scapegoating Conyers is a negative process in futility. Conyers wants impeachment more than all of us combined, so accusing Conyers as being complicit in war crimes makes as much sense as accusing ourselves for being complicit in war crimes since we have not lobbied our Congresspeople enuf to get Conyers the votes he needs for impeachment!
This is NOT deja vu. Conyers HAD the votes for a Nixon impeachment, that is WHY Nixon resigned first! (Everyone knew this at the time of Watergate Hearings. I was just a teen at the time and knew this is why Nixon resigned. Of course the media was real back then too.)
The blame for these atrocities against humankind belongs with Bush Administration .
Our laziness and whining makes ourselves complicit in war crimes ! There's work to be done in order to get these votes from our Congresspeople for impeachment to HELP the Chairman get the job done. At the risk of sounding like Bush, "it's hard work" to hustle these votes for an impeachment. Let's get busy!
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac
I Think Justice Is The More Important Point
Yank, I think that justice requires that the process of impeachment be pursued. A vast majority of Americans perceives that there are many things wrong in the country right now. There is a national sense of turmoil which prevails in all but the wealthiest bastions of American society.
I still contend that counting votes is a counter-productive way to look at this situation. Rather, impeachment should be viewed as what it really is, the investigation of possible wrongdoing, assembling of evidence of that wrongdoing, presentation of the evidence to the appropriate review board, in this case the House of Representatives, that body's indictment otherwise known as Articles of Impeachment and finally, trial by jury in the body of the US Senate.
That is the process. To consider having "votes" for impeachment now before the formal presentation of evidence to the House demonstrates the prejudices of those who claim they will vote one way or the other. These "votes" and the people who announce that prejudice actually desecrate the American system of justice.
Politicians and the mainstream media do their damndest to deceive the American public with this "there are not enough votes to impeach" rubbish. Quite frankly, if these preconceived "votes" are based on actual information, it would behoove all of us for these officials to publicly come forth with this information in order that discussions such as this become unnecessary. Until someone who has claimed that his or her vote is for or against impeachment explains why he or she knows the background evidence which produces that vote, to me such a "vote" is purely politically motivated nonsense.
How many Congresspeople have signed Wexler's Petition ?
If you want the Republican Party (hijacked by the warmongering Neocons) to be in the Oval Office again, then it does not matter if we have pre-conceived "votes" for impeachment or not. I know you and none of us want McCain the Neocon. But why is it ok for us to not want McCain , but its "political motivation" for Conyers to not want McCain in the Oval Office ?
A failed impeachment which could easily segue into a McCain Administration is a nightmare scenario I'd rather not entertain.
Justice would be extinct then.
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac
It's not "scapegoating", but Sworn Constitutional Oath
"we have not lobbied our Congresspeople enuf to get Conyers the votes he needs for impeachment!"
It is the job of the Congress to Uphold the Constitution, that's what they Swear to do. Conyers does not need a single vote to begin impeachment hearings, he doesn't even need Pelosi's consent. As dozens of charges are heard in the Absence of Executive Privilege, however, more and more members of Congress shall join the Rule of Law and Constitutional Justice provided by Impeachment.
"The blame for these atrocities against humankind belongs with Bush Administration ."
... And the compliant Congress, particularly Pelosi and Conyers who owe their positions of authority within the "investigative" body of the House to a nationwide rebellion of voters demanding accountability. I don't believe anyone here, including John Perry, is in the dark about "who" actually Directed the War Crimes, but our elected Congress is the "Check" provided for in the Constitution against a rogue Executive Office. Their failure to uphold the rule of law makes them directly complicit.
This isn't "scapegoating", this is We the People demanding Constitutional Accountability. I've been the lone-wolf on many occasions in my life, and never been afraid to sacrifice my career or goals for some injustice perpetrated under my "authority", and I hold no less of a standard for the well-rewarded Pelosi and Conyers... no matter how much good they've done in the past.
But on this note, we 100% agree:
"IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!"
ixoxi
Crucifying John Conyers is not helping the cause of impeachment
In fact , it has been doing the opposite and is detrimental to our cause. Does anyone here see impeachment happening because of this constant villification of Conyers? I see it making things go backwards for us, not forwards. I wish this witch-hunt never began, because it is very hard to stop this mob mentality now that everyone has jumped on board this bandwagon.
But helping the Chairman of the Judiciary get the votes he needs WILL HELP him. Congress already knows this is a criminal racketeering organization in the Oval Office, it does not need to be "proven" to them before they will lend Chairman Conyers their support before Impeachment Hearings commence. Chairman Conyers needs our support NOW by OUR consistent efforts to pressure Congressional members. That is how Nixon resigned , so many millions of Americans called their Congresspeople to demand impeachment, that when they took an unofficial quorum , Conyers knew they had the votes to impeach Nixon AND enforce his removal from the Oval Office before it began.
If we cannot rely on such an unreliable Congress, why should Chairman Conyers? You want him to stick his neck out to impeach and then fail? How many here would tar and feather him then?
Pelosi tabled impeachment, which made the Congress go cold to the idea. We need to remind them that we are boss, NOT Pelosi!
We are wasting time with this whining, and its accomplishing absolutely nothing . It's time to get our MOJO back! We need to WORK HARD and pressure Congressional members to sign Wexler's Petition and co-sponor Kucinich's H Res 333 bill !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_House_Resolution_333#Current_co-sponsors
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac
Put the evidence on the table and watch the votes pile up
Yank, you desperately need to stop ignoring the TRUTH ABOUT IMPEACHMENT.
Our nation's history has repeatedly proven that the party bringing impeachment, WHETHER OR NOT THE IMPEACHMENT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL, has benefitted in subsequent elections.
But regardless of this fact, the Constitution John Conyers swore to uphold says nothing about needing a certain number of pledged votes from Congress before initiating the impeachment process.
This is not a telethon. John Conyers needs no pledge from anybody. He needs to honor his oath and do his damn job or step aside for someone who's willing.
He knows the evidence of Bushco's crimes better than anyone else. Refusing to act to bring accountability for them makes him culpable, the same way you or I would be culpable if we had information that could help solve a crime and refused to come forward with it.
The passive, politically motivated approach you prefer is exactly the kind of crap that got us where we are today.
Latest video commentary:
"John Conyers Brings On the Deja Vu"
4/30/08
John, Conyers KNOWS firsthand the truth about impeachment
If anyone knows how impeachment really WORKS , Chairman Conyers does. Wanting pie in the sky won't make things happen, that's just wishful thinking. Without the practical application of votes, impeachment would be a Constitutional AND budgetary AND political disaster . Chairman Conyers KNOWS the practical side of impeachment , and what it takes to make it REALLY happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
"...After being told by key Republican Senators that enough votes existed to convict and remove him, Nixon decided to resign...."
WE CAN MAKE IMPEACHMENT HAPPEN > We should be HELPING Chairman Conyers with the numbers, instead of hurting him with our words.
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac
Exactly right, Yank!
Thanks for proving my point.
He knows the truth first hand.
And he's ignoring it, just like you are. Because neither of you can refute it.
All you can do is talk in circles and put words in the mouths of those you disagree with. Demanding that Conyers do his job is not "pie in the sky." It's honoring the Constitution that defines our system of government.
You talk about how our words are hurting him, but you simply cannot grasp that his inaction is hurting us far worse, and apparently neither can he, because both of you are so pathetically blinded by ridiculous party politics.
The Constitution says nothing about political parties or needing to make sure the votes are there before the impeachment process is even started. The idea that not having the votes pleged beforehand would be "a Constitutional AND budgetary AND political disaster" is just further evidence of your aversion to the proven history impeachment.
The history that I and others here have repeatedly cited proves both you and Conyers wrong, which is why you have yet to even attempt to address it.
Conyers HAS NO CHOICE if he wants to honor his oath and NOT ignorantly piss away 40 years of accomplishment in Washington. He MUST move ahead with impeachment. And if he does, and starts putting the evidence on the table and on the record, FOR THE WORLD TO SEE, it will force the hand of anyone else in Congress who truly wants to honor THEIR oath (or at least keep their cushy DC gig), and the votes WILL be there.
Latest video commentary:
"John Conyers Brings On the Deja Vu"
4/30/08
Not true
OUR inaction is hurting any chance for Conyers to impeach. He needs us to help him get the votes, because to impeach without votes is WORSE than not impeaching at all, pure folly. Villifying Conyers by we , "his Constitutional friends", will be nothing compared to what the Neocons would do to Conyers, the Constitution and the Oval Office if the Chairman went ahead with no quorum of Congress. The Neocons would bury the Constitution in the process, if impeachment was a kneejerk reaction that failed miserably . Chairman John Conyers wants to get his ducks in a row, his i's dotted and his t's crossed, like he did with Nixon. I cannot think of anything more Constitutional than a man who is protecting his country and we the people, in spite of ourselves. There is nothing "Constitutional" about setting up impeachment for failure. That is something Karl Rove would do!
Obviously John Conyers' conscientious method for getting pre-committed votes worked. He got the job done in 1974. Congress had the votes and Nixon resigned.
Been there done that. I remember.
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac
Our inaction?
Congress Critters are ignoring us left and right and down the middle. Someone in a position to do something needs to do something. I've sensed that Conyer's office is for impeachment. What else can we do? We protest, have vigils, protest supposed "anti-war" representatives, write letters, ask for meetings. The reps (mine is Bobby Scott in VA) are not even talking with us. It may be up to Conyers to speak for us. Pelosi certainly doesn't. You may have read my last back and forth with Pelosi's office. There was no dialogue. Off to the voice mail with you.....This supporting of Conyers is getting on my nerves a bit. I know you get more with sugar than, whatever the rest of the saying is, but we have gotten squat. Most folks in office must know they will be heroes and heroines if they do the right thing for the country. What is holding them back. That is what I really want to know.
Helping Conyers get Congress' votes IS supporting impeachment
When this site started three years ago , supporting Conyers is all we did. He is the father of impeachment against Bush. You don't see the Neocons turning on Irving Kristol, the godfather of Neoconservatism , like this. This collective hatred towards John Conyers now is bizarre and disheartening.
Committing ourselves to get Conyers the votes he needs to REALLY impeach (instead of just demanding that he go through the motions) sure beats wasting our time crying in our beers .
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac
I feel sorry for you, Yank. Truly.
With every post, you keep proving you have no clue what the hell you're talking about. STILL, you're ignoring the PROVEN HISTORY of impeachment and the truth about the Constitution, and blaming those of us who are quite justifiably angry with Conyers for refusing to do his job while our Republic burns, and innocent civilians and our troops continue to die for Bushco's lies.
John Conyers, with his inaction, IS AIDING AND ABETTING WAR CRIMINALS.
And you just keep kissing his ass like your angling for a job on his staff or something.
Wake up and knock it off with the ignorant politics.
Latest video commentary:
"John Conyers Brings On the Deja Vu"
4/30/08
John you are wrong,
about me, John Conyers and especially history . I remember how and why Nixon resigned. Do you?
Considering the fact that John Conyers' strategy for impeachment actually worked in past history, I am willing to bet on a proven winner.
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac
Recollections Of Summer 1974
The scene was the House Judiciary Committee hearing chamber in Washington, D.C. There was the parade of witnesses testifying and being questioned by Committee members.
There was the collection of EVIDENCE, including "the smoking gun". It was after the EVIDENCE was "set out on the table" that the mood of the American people turned into a tidal wave of opposition to Richard Milhaus Nixon.
The process did not take a very long time. It probably lasted six to eight weeks though I do not profess to be accurate on that figure, but I am fairly certain that it was confined to a June to August time frame at most. One must also remember that the Senate Select Committee (Senator Sam Ervin, D-NC and Seantor Howard Baker, R-TN led their respective parties' members) conducted a prior investigation into the Watergate mess in which a great deal of valueable information was revealed.
In this current situation, there has been no such "preliminary" committee investigation into possibly questionable conduct which has set the stage for the House Judiciary Committee to conduct Impeachment hearings.
In this situation however, there has been a multi-faceted array of information and admissions of questionable conduct by a miriad of public officials ranging from the President, Vice President, Supreme Court Justices, Federal Judges, cabinet officials, Senators, Congressmen/women, and other civil officers of the United States of America.
All of this information begs for the formal process to begin just as it did back in the Summer of 1974. The main difference from 1974 to today is that the information is being ignored, obfuscated and spun as a result of a major difference in the political climate of today. That is just my opinion.
The actual process of governing has been replaced by the constant exercise of running for office. Here, in my view, is the key problem. Politicians can not stop running for their respective offices long enough to concern themselves with actually performing the jobs to which they have been elected to serve. This is the most striking evolution that has taken place since 1974.
AIPAC for instance, to my recollection, was never even mentioned during the 1974 Impeachment scenario. Today, I wonder just how many Democrats have been shackled by his or her ties to this all too powerful "lobby" group!
As far as votes for Impeachment in 1974, let me try to recall a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee and his staunch support for Nixon. Charles Sandman was a Congressman from New Jersey and a Republican. If you are old enough, you may remember how, in the face of mounting credible evidence implicating Nixon in the cover-up of Watergate, Sandman steadfastly stood in the President's corner backing him without pause or question.
What happened to Sandman? In the next Congressional election Sandman was soundly defeated. Therein lies the rub! As I have been saying for a long time, the process of presentation of the evidence will flush out the true statesmen and women from the political hacks.
The antithesis of Sandman was Congresswomen Barbara Jordan from Texas. Again, if you are old enough to remember her eloquent speech, the most famous quotation of which was "my belief in the Constitution is total, it is complete", The Honorable Barbara Jordan elevated herself to statesmanship status. It was a status which has outlived her. Get the recent book about her and watch the DVD of this speech. It still sends chills up and down any true American's spine.
I suppose my point is to continue to harp on the step by step process. You have to stand before you walk, and walk before you run. Investigate first, vote on Articles of Impeachment second and conduc the trial in the Senate and see where the chips fall.
By the way, go back to the earlier portion of this post and remember that the list includes more officials than the President and Vice President. All those levels of office holders, elected and appointed, should be investigated thoroughly and held accountable should their conduct warrant.
My profession has participated in this to our dishonor in my view and it is my profession which can and should take the lead in restoring this nation's integrity as a nation of laws and not of men.
Level, step by step approach to Restoring Constitutional Order
Restoring Constitutional Order requires Conyers to initiate Hearings and juice up Investigations in process already, to make it a "cause" within his authority, and then watch every member of the conflicted-congress squirm in their fence-sitting seat on this Rogue Executive... It is NOT Conyers job to guarantee the outcome, or calculate political expediency, or protect his own privilege (or Pelosi's), but to bring the Bush administration to account before the People's Representatives, nothing less will do.
Massive Criminal Activity requires a Fearless Congressional Response
Conyers is in the "hot seat" because his position is arguably the single greatest threat to the neocon-cabal's legitimacy. Conyers is a Public Servant or he is a Political Servant. Now that so much of our government is in failure-mode, our options for redress are narrowing. This has more to do with Pelosi and so many other dems being cozy in a go-along to get-along relationship with the MIC, Torture and other Criminal enterprise than it does John Conyers' personal service to our country. But the Bottom Line is: If you don't have what it takes to sacrifice your personal interests for Constitutional Protections, to stick your neck out when others are frightened, then you're not worthy of even an entry-level job in the military, much less the Judiciary Chair.
Thank you Richard for a sound appeal for personal responsibility in Congress.
ixoxi
Funny thing about history, yank. You need to remember ALL of it.
Not just the parts that fit your ridiculously weak political arguments.
You offered up this quote from Wikipedia:
"...After being told by key Republican Senators that enough votes existed to convict and remove him, Nixon decided to resign...."
Which he did at noon on August 9th, 1974, one day after announcing it to the nation.
But what happened before that?
From the same Wikipedia entry that you quoted:
"The House Judiciary Committee voted 27 to 11 on July 27, 1974 to recommend the first article of impeachment against the President: obstruction of justice. The second (abuse of power) and third (contempt of Congress) articles were passed on July 29, 1974 and July 30, 1974, respectively.
The evidence was put on the table, for the record. The judiciary voted to send impeachment to the full Congress for a vote, which forced Nixon to resign to avoid being thrown out.
What you are advocating is no different than asking a criminal jury to commit to voting for conviction before they review the evidence, which is clearly ridiculous.
We can beg and plead and lobby and respectfully suggest that our reps commit to impeachment until we're blue in the face. Many of us have, only to realize they're just playing the same politically motivated spin game that John Conyers is playing. They'll keep blowing the same smoke and moving the same mirrors for as long as we keep asking them nicely.
The ONLY chance at truly forcing their hand rests with John Conyers, who needs to put the evidence on the table, into the congressional record and bring it to a vote in the Judiciary Committee.
If he continues to refuse to do his job, the people of Michigan's 14th district need to vote him out of it.
Assuming, of course, that Congress will not soon be disbanded for lack of relevance, because partisan lemmings like Conyers and those following his ignorant lead failed to stand up.
Latest video commentary:
"John Conyers Brings On the Deja Vu"
4/30/08
I hated school and caught the measles every year
in order to stay home and I thought I got away with it. I developed a credibility problem. Conyers will not impeach Bush and Cheney until we discover a way to force his hand.
He keeps coming up with a new excuse. We know your lying J.C.
Get a life.
EW
John , Conyers does not have close to a Nixon quorum now
Conyers was there during the Nixon Administration, I remember it, but you will not admit that you don't remember (why is that?)
Judiciary Committee knew before going in what kind of chances they had with a Nixon impeachment, which were astronomically good, as I said the media was OUR watchdog back then, if you remember? The hub-bub about Clinton was NOTHING in comparison to the historical signifigance and social upheaval of an impeachment against Nixon, if you remember? The House had a REAL Democrat majority back then, if you remember? The Speaker did not say "impeachment is off the table" to his own party back then, if you remember?
This is NOT history to me, because I remember. Do you?
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac
Conyers Drew Up The Blueprint
Chairman Conyers drew up the evidentiary blueprint for the impeachment of not just Bush, but the rest of the neocon criminals.
The legwork has been done and now it needs to be preented to the wider public in formal proceedings, read hearings, which do not require any such thing as a vote.
I completely agree with John Perry in is analogy to the jury being polled prior to the presentation of the evidence. Ask yourself why this evidence has been kept under wraps for over two years. It has in fact been published in book form and on the internet for those sophisticated enough and interested enough to absorb it.
The evidence is compelling! There is even more of it that has come to light since THE CONSTITUTION IN CRISIS was published. There have enve been significant admissions of conduct which is prima facia impeachable. Admissions made be GWB himself, complete with the smirk.
You are quite correct to state that the media is a major factor in today's scenario. Here is the cover for the politicos for both parties. This is the main reason that these traditional sources of information are no longer viable. Propaganda has become their stock in trade in promotion of the power elite. The corporate media is a part of the power elite and the inherent conflict of interest is completely invisible to the average member of the American public. Hence, these citizens still "trust" what they hear on radio and TV and what they read in the NYT and WAPO, etc.
Conyers could convene impeachment hearings on the array of officials I alluded to this morning in a heartbeat. He needs no vote to conduct such a hearing or hearings. Just do it and get the evidence out in front of the public.
Desparate times call for desparate measures. Living one's oath as a public servant is paramount. JFK wrote PROFILES IN COURAGE before being elected President in 1960. Conyers should display the courage of his principles and complete what he started when he and his minority staff of the house Judiciary Committee put together the "case" which became THE CONSTITUTION IN CRISIS.
Thanks for the sound logic and common sense, Richard.
Something that clearly escapes yank on this issue.
She prefers the digusting partisan approach to impeachment over honoring the Constitution and putting the overwhelming evidence on the table. She remembers Nixon and Conyers' role during that time (except for the fact that the Judiciary didn't have the votes then either, until they held impeachment hearings and put the evidence on the table), but she's ignoring the political history of impeachment that goes back to before Lincoln. And how, without exception, that history favors the party bringing impeachment in subsequent elections, whether or not the impeachment has been successful, because the people like to see Congress actually trying to do its job.
She has no real answers. All she can do avoid any objective examination of ALL the facts, seemingly making up her clueless responses on the fly.
She might not realize it, but she is only promoting the continuation of the disastrous course this country has been on since Bushco was appointed to office.
Then again, maybe she does realize it, which would explain all the nonsense in her arguments.
She's the perfect neocon troll.
Latest video commentary:
"John Conyers Brings On the Deja Vu"
4/30/08
Neocon troll.
Maybe. Have enjoyed a number of Yank's posts but do wonder how many of us went through her back and forth with James-Paul, and lost focus on the more important matters. Sister Yank. Please stop defending Conyers. He is his own man and his staff told me that their office is not against impeachment. He just needs to start the process. That is it. Let us get on with it.
Re Neocon troll label
Yank, I am sorry, but I'm not sure for what reasons. You have brought up many good links for any number of subjects a lot of us look are looking for. I just don't understand your defense of Conyers. When I called my congress critter's office today I got a sense that he would be willing if Conyers was willing re impeachment hearings. This isn't a bottom-up democracy, at least not yet. Am sorry to repeat name-calling, and I believe it isn't true, but can you give us a little to dispel the idea of name? Apologies in advance, Rain
Everyone , NUMBERS are logical, not slandering Conyers
No apology necessary Rain. As Conyers said himself on Amy Goodman's show, he would have to hold the Constitution in one hand and a calculator in the other hand to proceed LOGICALLY with impeachment. Impeachment is NOT hopeless, it is voteless. It is OUR JOB to muster up the votes, to pressure OUR Congresspeople, to let them know we will NOT vote for them without the votes that Chairman Conyers needs for impeachment. My God people, Conyers is just one 82-year-old man who knows more about impeachment than anybody, but he also knows WHAT IT TAKES, and it TAKES MORE than he has>>> THE VOTES. He needs us, but noone wants to answer his call. WHY?
Everyone just wants Conyers to stick his neck out all by himself, throw all his hard work to the wolves, and watch them ravage it and tear it apart to a doomed failure, because noone wants to HELP him drum up the votes. Then after a failed impeachment, which Karl Rove would spin into a major failure of Democrats "lying" about Bush and Cheney (and by association, MCCAIN.) And Voila, there you have it , THE THIRD MCBUSH ADMINISTRATION.
And then Conyers would be all by himself, beaten down by the Neocons and already slandered and villified by the Progressives. Frankly, I am surprised John Conyers even speaks to we so-called "Progressives" at all.
Not directed at you personally Rain, but the gathering pitchfork/torches throng in general>>>How can anyone take you people seriously when you DON'T TAKE WINNING IMPEACHMENT SERIOUSLY??? (But trying and losing is good enuf?) Stay the course of whining impeachment folks, I'd rather rally the troops for VOTES for impeachment, AND WIN THIS DAMN THING.
I spent hours of my teen life watching Watergate Hearings which eventually put Impeachment on the Judiciary Committee table, ... then Nixon resigned. If anyone remembers the Watergate Hearings they were televised NOT on cable and NOT on C-SPAN , but on network television , even during the Summer which basically was how I was forced to endure and recollect such boring, monotonous memories in my young life (do you REALLY think I watched hours of Watergate Hearings VOLUNTARILY?) NO , I watched because sometimes it was the ONLY thing TO watch that long hot Summer. Back then the media WAS REAL. The media was watching OUR BACKS. And THAT is why millions of people put their Congresspeople's feet to the fire about bringing up the "novel" idea of impeaching Nixon. Just take a look at these ASTRONOMICAL NUMBERS back in 1974 (if you all really think numbers don't matter to Conyers and to impeachment itself :
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/W/htmlW/watergate/watergate.htm
"...On 6 February 1974, a new phase of Watergate began when the U.S. House of Representatives voted 410-to-4 to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach President Nixon. If so, the Committee was authorized to report necessary articles of impeachment to the full House...."
These are the HUMONGOUS NUMBERS Conyers is used to, and guess what... NIXON STILL GOT PARDONED!!!
And you all are scratching your heads about CHAIRMAN JOHN CONYERS logic now???
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac
Numbers? Try this number....
70% want the bumb out. That is the only number Conyers should be looking at - that is the ONLY number that matter in a democracy - or maybe we dont have one and the only numbers Coyners thinks that matters is the "power elite?".
That's A POLL > platitudes don't equal VOTES
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac
Platitute - you know what that word even means?
From Scribners-Bantam English Dictionary:
Plat-i-tude (n) Trite or commonplace remark.
Well since 70% of the people's opinions are "trite", you must favor the other 30% opinions'. Hence you are a Neo-Con troll by your own words.
Representative democracy means that the represtatives represent the democracy.
The back is crowded with the other cowards, grow some balls and LEAD or get in the back of the line. Start worrying about the state of this country than the name plate on the door.
When its YOUR JOB to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign or DOMESTIC and dont, then you abet and assist those whom are attacking it. The Constitutions protection is the JOB of all elected Federal and State officials. Failing to properly protect it is analogous to treason.
Sticks and stones
Honestly, all this visceral villification will NOT get you impeachment...votes from Congress for Chairman Conyers to impeach and convict the WAR CRIMINALS will.
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac
You're not a "troll" yank, but...
"he would have to hold the Constitution in one hand and a calculator in the other hand to proceed LOGICALLY with impeachment."
Conyers "calculator" should include the Number of War Crimes Committed and In Process, the Number of Victims of War Crimes, the Number of "trillions" in MIC Plunder, the Number, "935", Lies concerning the Iraq War alone, the Number of the millions of Americans who are NOT asleep, and the Number of closet-supporters in congress waiting for his lead to break through the MSM-Immunity continuing to grant carte blanch to this criminal cabal. "Logic" isn't really what this is about, or it would be settled in favor of the Victims of the Bush administration. Neither is it logical to dismiss the Constitutional Mandate for Impeachment Hearings and Investigations. In fact, the single and only logical way to peal back the Obstructionist Veil this cabal has shrouded itself with is to initiate these Hearings.
"It is OUR JOB to muster up the votes, to pressure OUR Congresspeople, to let them know we will NOT vote for them without the votes that Chairman Conyers needs for impeachment."
We can't get the Chairman to put it on the table for our individual Representatives to even choose whether to back it or oppose it. I have hounded my congressman for the past 3 years and what he sees is "political expediency": As long as the Judiciary Committee refuses to present Impeachment Hearings and Investigations on the wide range of crimes involved, then so also does the MSM get to continue "Denial", which allows my congressman to remain "unheated" by Conters' supposed hot-seat. This is circular logic that will never bring anyone or anything to account.
"Everyone just wants Conyers to stick his neck out all by himself, throw all his hard work to the wolves, and watch them ravage it and tear it apart to a doomed failure,... Then after a failed impeachment, which Karl Rove would spin into a major failure of Democrats "lying" about Bush and Cheney... THE THIRD MCBUSH ADMINISTRATION."
Yes, MOST of us want Conyers to stick his neck out under these circumstances, remember he is the one with the Authority, that hot-seat that comes with hot-responsibility to the Constitution. But you also allude to a rather disturbing idea, that you, yourself, do not actually believe the Evidence we have against Bush/Cheney will hold up under scrutiny. Counter to your take on this, I believe Karl Rove will end up washed-up along with George W and Dick the Cheney, numerous advisers and DoD personnel and a few corporations too. I stand with this site precisely because of the overwhelming evidence of criminal wrong doing... The problem has more to do with "where to start" than "can we finish". It's going to take a life-time of historical scrutiny to put this Attempted Fascist Coup into perspective, but we must start the Hearings First!
Also, Hearings conducted between now and the election will guarantee there will be no mcsameIII, absent a new false-flag of major proportions that is. This is because Executive Privilege will be Stripped, the Stonewalling will finally by broken, witnesses Will Appear or be Jailed (news in itself), and New Charges Will Surface, resulting in Massive MSM Coverage/Breakthrough. The American people are not any longer so gullible to Official Lies, and when they start hearing evidence-based charges answered with more of the Rovian-Spin and Lies of Diffusion, trust-in-Bush will take another dive with Conyers and his fellow-champions picking up the support. Remember also Bush never had credibility in the first place, the neocons have been spending "Fear-Capital" to get what they want from 9/11 on, and the home of the brave is losing the fear that is central to their power, Rove's power. People are getting a disgusting taste in their mouth over these liars.
This issue requires controversial "news", the news requires the Chairman of the Judiciary Bucking Pelosi's Cowardice and Complicity and Facing Down the Dragon... Watch the American Public come to Conyers' Rescue, I "promise" this is the case.
One other thing Yank, there's no way I believe you're remotely a "troll", so please don't assume everyone is inclined to that label. Like Rain said, you've contributed many valuable insights and links here and it is valued. However, on this issue of turning up the heat on Conyers, the logical thing to do is to Begin Impeachment Hearings in the House Judiciary, and that means John Conyers sticking his neck out and making it happen.
ixoxi
A vote in the hand , is better than two for Bush ;-D
Aesop said something similar to my "twisted fable" version. Sometimes the oldest sayings are the wisest. Now I'm not saying John Conyers is as wise as Aesop, but maybe as old as "the hills". ;)
If experience is the best teacher, then John Conyers made an A+ on "Impeachment 101" long ago. I'd be willing to say he is even qualified as an accredited professor in "upper level Impeachment courses" .
We ignore our elders and even throw them away in this country. Maybe we should listen to their sage advice based on life experience instead.
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac
I'd love to listen to his sage advice, but I don't hear anything
Obviously his position has him stuffed to the gills with complication, demands, agendas and unseen political forces, but there is one thing he can never ever take his eye off of if he remains on the payroll as a Congressman: The Constitution.
I'm someone who has always, and I mean always listened to my "elders", in fact all my friends in my 20's were over 70 and others used to make fun of me for it. I take Conyers' opinions with the utmost respect, but have yet to hear one convincing argument as to why we are not already Impeaching this cabal. And one lesson I learned in navigating so many elders was that when they are wrong you MUST tell them so. We're telling Conyers he's wrong now.
I believe the only explanation, lacking his credible answer as to "why", is that there are "unseen forces", real threats on his life or family, or dirty laundry, but trust, trusting Conyers is over, as for this Congress, We Demand Action.
We must show backbone, integrity and a restoration of the rule of law before November or the next president, no matter who it is, will be nothing but a puppet of the New Fascist Beltway.
ixoxi
John
nvm, not worth it...sticks and stones, etc etc etc
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac
John Perry is correct, do some research.
#s for impeachment didnt happen until well into the hearings. Nixon only resigned when his Senate buddies told him - it was lost.
The real reason no impeachment is happening is b/c Pelosi and most of the dem leadership in Congress are active participants in Bush's crimes. The criminals will not bring their fellow criminals to the dock. Stop asking them.
Vote out all dem leadership, vote in the nextdoor neighbor, dog-catcher anyone else and then see all the crooks
lined-up doing the perp-walk. Be amazed at who that list will contain!!!
Research? I don't need no stinkin' research... I watched it live
Numbers happened before Watergate Hearings even started , millions of American people were glued to their sets every nite watching the thing unfold from the Watergate break-in in 1972, while fed-up with the Vietnam War in 1973, until Nixon resigned in 1974. American people were getting bombarded by REAL NEWS of Vietnam War and Watergate all the time in early '70's, no blind sheeple ... no American Idol back then, no video games , no computers. Hand-held calculators didn't come out until late '70's, along with disco. But we understood numbers before calculators .
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac
Here is the real history - not that what you remembered
This was taken from this web site:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/public-opinion-presidential-l...
"Watergate unfolded over the course of three years. Richard Nixon was re-elected with an overwhelming landslide in the middle of the scandal. It is highly instructive to recall the evolution of public opinion with regard to this Mother of all Presidential Law-breaking Scandals:
[I]t is worth remembering that Watergate, as a case against a presidency, was not built in a day, and the decision of most Americans to abandon their support of Nixon was not made overnight.
Shafts of light fell on Nixon's dark side in June 1972, when burglars were caught bugging the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate hotel-office complex. The few newspeople who went after the story began piecing it together that summer and fall: the program of dirty tricks and the illegal cash financing, the efforts to silence potential witnesses and shield the president.
While the revelations accumulated, the rest of the country tuned out. That November, Nixon carried 49 states in winning re-election. More than two months later, as the first Watergate defendants were going to court in January 1973, Nixon's numbers in the Gallup Poll were among the most robust of his presidency: 68 percent approval to 25 percent disapproval (a near match with Clinton's figures for late January 1998).
Of course, that was before Nixon began talking about invoking executive privilege to prevent White House aides from testifying about an alleged cover-up. When that key phrase, "executive privilege," became part of the discussion, Nixon's numbers started their descent.
In February, the Senate voted 70-0 to empanel an investigating committee of its own. Nixon's approval rating in the first week of April stood at 54 percent in the Gallup Poll. Most Americans were still withholding judgment.
Even after the April 30 speech in which Nixon announced the resignation of his closest aides, many Republicans continued to rally around the president. The Senate Republican leader, Hugh C. Scott of Pennsylvania, said the speech had proved that the president was "determined to see this affair thoroughly cleaned up." The governor of California, Ronald Reagan, said the Watergate bugging had been illegal but that "criminal" was too harsh a term because the convicted burglars were "not criminals at heart."
That same month, Republican state party chairmen meeting in Chicago adopted a resolution blaming "a few overzealous individuals" for Watergate and lending unequivocal support to the president.
Vice President Spiro T. Agnew accused the press of using "hearsay" and other tactics that were "a very short jump from McCarthyism." The same comparison was picked up by the man who had succeeded McCarthy in the Senate, Democrat William Proxmire of Wisconsin, who said the media had been "grossly unfair" to Nixon.
By then, however, the bleeding in the Gallup Poll had dropped Nixon to just 48 percent approval in the first week of May -- a drop of 20 percentage points since January. And that rating would keep on falling through the 25 percent level before Nixon's resignation in August 1974."
So infact you are suffering from faulty memory:
1. Votes for impeachment came after the hearings started
2. Nixon's approval didnt tank until after the hearings started.
What does that say when Bush's and Cheney's opinion poll numbers are already below that of Nixon's?
Speaker of the House did not "take it off the table" back then
Cuz there was REAL majority in Congress the Judiciary counted on.
Conyers can do this thing successfully now if we give him the votes . Do we have the will to do this with more co-sponsors for Kucinich's H RES 333 and more Congressional signatures on Wexler's Petition?
And I remember my History teacher in 8th grade in 1972, she told us to put our books down part of everyday and discuss what was going with Watergate break-in and phenomenal build-up of story . Woodward and Bernstein were becoming national heroes looong before the Watergate Hearings. Jokes about Deep Throat were the raging fad. It was the TOP news story on network news every nite.
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac
Give it up, Yank.
You're not winning any new supporters here with your complete avoidance of any and all indisputable history that doesn't comport with your lame "let's just keep kissing Conyers' ass" strategy.
Pathetic, passive attitudes like yours are what got us in the mess we're in now. You're playing right into the hands of the traitors who have hijacked our country!
Will you EVER get it?
Latest video commentary:
"John Conyers Brings On the Deja Vu"
4/30/08
Give up on Impeachment ....NEVER !
I am not here to support you or to be supported . I am here to GET THE JOB OF IMPEACHMENT DONE.
IMPEACH BUSHCO & RICO PNAC/AIPAC>"OUT" ANTI-AMERICAN CABALS!
WE MUST DEFEAT MCCAIN!!! http://www.cafepress.com/bootthepnac
I didn't ask for your support
Nor did I tell you to give up on impeachment. I told you to give up on your ridiculous strategy of ignoring the indisputable history that proves you wrong, and blaming those of us who are rightfully angry with Conyers for placing his party before his country.
He is ignoring his oath and failing all of us. He deserves every ounce of vilification he is currently experiencing, and CERTAINLY deserves to be voted out in November by the citizens of Michigan's 14th district.
Latest video commentary:
"John Conyers Brings On the Deja Vu"
4/30/08
N0?
Let's make this clear, I do NOT support your methods. I support Impeachment Ac