Dodging Impeachment

The following is a wonderful piece by Ralph Nader. While I wholeheartedly agree that Bush and Cheney and their evil cohorts should rot in prison til the end of their days, I also must believe that the responsibility to effect this impeachment lies solely on the shoulders of the Democratic Party. Any peace and justice advocate who pressures real progressives to take time out of their busy schedule to call or write the corporate Dem who "took over" in 2006 thinking this will have some sort of effect on them are unbelievably naive. It is a huge waste of time, at best. At worst, it is a purposeful diversion which takes time away from more pressing and possible matters (like national health care, the illegal occupation of Iraq and local political races). The Democrats who voted for the war will simply continue to fund and support it while talking to their constituencies about how their "hands are tied". These are not the people's representatives. They represent "those that brung 'em" to paraphrase the late great Molly Ivins. They are certainly not going to impeach their war profiteering buddies in the Oval Office.


Published on Saturday, October 13, 2007 by CommonDreams.org www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/13/4512

Dodging Impeachment by Ralph Nader

The meeting at the Jones Library in Amherst, Massachusetts on July 5, 2007 was anything but routine. Seated before Cong. John Olver (D-MA) were twenty seasoned citizens from over a dozen municipalities in this First Congressional District which embraces the lovely Berkshire Hills.

The subject-impeachment of George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney.

The request-that Cong. Olver join the impeachment drive in Congress.

More than just opinion was being conveyed to Cong. Olver, a then 70 year old Massachusetts liberal with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These Americans voted overwhelmingly during formal annual town meetings in 14 towns and two cities in the First District endorsing resolutions to impeach the President and Vice President.

Presented in the form of petitions to be sent to the Congress, the approving citizenry cited at least four “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

They included the initiation of the Iraq war based on defrauding the public and intentionally misleading the Congress, spying on Americans without judicial authorization, committing the torture of prisoners in violation of

both federal law and the U.N. Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, and stripping American citizens of their Constitutional rights by jailing them indefinitely without charges and without access to legal counsel or

even an opportunity to challenge their imprisonment in a court of law. Forty towns in Vermont and the State Senate had already presented their Congressional delegation with similar petitions.

Impeachment advocates reported the results to Cong. Olver from each town meeting. Leverett’s vote was 339-1; Great Barrington was 100-3. No vote in any of the towns or cities was less than a two-third majority “yes” in favor of impeachment, according to long-time activist, Atty. Robert Feuer of Stockbridge, Mass.

With three fourths of reports completed Cong. Olver, who voted against the war, raised his hand and said, “Spare me, I know full well the overwhelming majority of my constituency is in favor of impeachment.” He then told them he would not sign on to any impeachment resolution whether against Bush or against Cheney (H.Res. 333 introduced by Cong. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)). He was quite adamant.

In taking this unrepresentative position, Rep. Olver’s position was identical to that of the House Democratic leadership and many of his Democratic colleagues.

The Democratic Party line on impeachment is that Bush and Cheney are the most impeachable White House duo in American history (they believe this privately). The Democrats do not want to distract attention from their legislative agenda, and need Republican votes for passage. Moreover, they do not have the votes to obtain the requisite two-thirds of the members present for conviction in the Senate.

Strangely, none of these excuses bothered Republicans when they impeached Bill Clinton in the House for lying under oath about sex and proceeded to a full trial in the Senate where they failed to get the required votes. Can

Clinton’s “high crimes and misdemeanors” begin to compare with this White House crime wave?

The last question to Cong. Olver was from a young veteran back from Iraq and Afghanistan. “What could we possibly do to bring you around to our way of thinking,” he asked?

Cong. Olver’s response, after several seconds of silence, was “You have to prove to me that impeachment will not be counterproductive.”

Members of Congress should apply the same standard to themselves that they like to apply to members of the Executive and Judicial branches-namely to honor their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. That Oath is

supposed to transcend political calculations.

Maybe the Democrats think that Bush and Cheney are such wild and crazy guys that a serious impeachment drive in Congress would provoke the two draft-dodgers to launch a military emergency, strike Iran or otherwise generate a crisis, based on their continual fulminations about the “war on terror,” that would engulf the Democrats and throw them on the defensive for 2008.

In short, the Democrats may be viewing Bush and Cheney as being so defiantly, aggressively impeachable on so many counts as to be unimpeachable. That is, with the White House harboring so much political nitroglycerine, don’t even try to remove it. Such a cowardly position would make quite a precedent for future Presidents who want to illegally elbow out the other two branches of government and our Constitution.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.

Democrat Treachery Alive and Well in CD 20

This type of abandonment of both principle and spine is exactly why I told area progressives that I would be voting for Erik Sundwall in CD 20's latest Congressional race. Sundwall is
the Libertarian who was successfully blocked from the ballot, even though he had collected almost twice the required number of signatures, by the two-party rules developed to help the Gillibrands and the Weeneys of this world. Like most aspiring politicians, Gillibrand is neither a progressive nor a friend of the peace movement. She is simply (much like her evil predecessor) a climber and a neophyte who was a safe candidate for the Republican-Lites precisely because she can be counted on to do whatever her party bosses and handlers "advise" her to do.

Nancy Pelosi - "Impeachment is off the table!"

Perhaps, we should hold a celebration reveling in the treachery of these so-called "anti-war leaders". ;-)



Gillibrand Won't Block Iraq funds
Congresswoman says she wouldn't deny money meant to support troops

By DENNIS YUSKO, Staff writer Click byline for more stories by writer.
First published: Tuesday, January 30, 2007

SARATOGA SPRINGS -- Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand would not support a resolution that blocks funding to troops in Iraq, she said Monday at her first public town hall meeting.
"You never want to make the troops vulnerable," Gillibrand told more than 150 people in the Saratoga VFW Hall on Excelsior Avenue.

Iraq and health care -- in that order -- are the most vital issues facing New York's 20th Congressional District, said the congresswoman, who has become the local face of the new 110th Congress. She detailed to a standing room only crowd what it was like to be part of a flurry of legislation passed by the House of Representatives during its first 100 hours of work.
The Greenport Democrat talked about her party's efforts to ban some gifts and trips given to elected officials; beef up port and airport security; reduce interest rates on student loans; increase the minimum wage; and more.

"The first 100 hours were incredibly important," said Gillibrand, who defeated Republican incumbent John Sweeney in a bitter campaign last year. "These were all issues I campaigned on."
But questions and her remarks about the ongoing conflict in Iraq produced the most passion. Several members of the audience said afterward that they had come to Gillibrand's first district meeting because they wanted to know her stance on funding President Bush's 21,500-troop "surge" in Iraq.
"I think this is going to be a big test," said Jeffrey Halpern of North Galway, a member of the Saratoga Peace Alliance. "Some political figures say they are against the war, but still vote to fund it, and the Saratoga Peace Alliance feels that is hypocritical."

The new Democrat-led Congress is debating multiple resolutions on Iraq that call for taking President Bush to task on the issue with varying degrees of confrontation. The most drastic measure would cut off funds for the war effort, something Gillibrand said she wasn't prepared to do.

Gillibrand has joined the "Blue Dogs" in Congress, a group of conservative Democrats, and as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, has questioned the nation's top military leaders about Iraq. She said Monday she wants to ensure that deployed troops continue to receive funding for basic necessities like food and body armor.
But she also said the President's war plan was strategically misguided, and that any additional spending on military operations should be monitored. The United States should engage Syria and Iran in trying to reach a peace agreement in Iraq, Gillibrand said.

"The solutions really reside in the political and economic arenas," said Gillibrand, who has pledged to voters to hold at least one public meeting a month in the district. On Monday, she spent a hurried hour in the VFW hall, fielding various questions on a variety of issues, ranging from the attack on the World Trade Center to whether the United States is poised to attack Iran.
She said the President does not have congressional approval to attack Iran.
The crowd was generally supportive, but anxious about Iraq.

The right thing to do would be to end funding for the war, said Myrna Sack of Saratoga Springs. "You either are for the war, or not for the war. Period," Sack said.
But both Sack and Halpern, the member of the Saratoga Peace Alliance, said they remained hopeful for Gillibrand's term.

The meeting ended with 1st Lt. Matthew McLoughlin of Malta, who served in Iraq in 2004-05 with the New York Army National Guard, urging that Gillibrand consider the troops with her vote. He said voting against funding the troop increase in Iraq would achieve nothing, and only undermine the efforts of the troops.
"Thank you for your service," the congresswoman replied. "I will consider that."

Dennis Yusko can be reached at 581-8438 or by e-mail at dyusko@timesunion.com