Saturday, 7/11/08: Speaker Pelosi Changes Mind on Impeachment Hearings!
Blog: Saturday, July 11, 2008: Hard to say if it really is those phone calls you and others have been making to the Members of the House Judiciary Committee, but Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi allowed on Thursday morning, in response to Ohio Representative Kucinich's simplified restatement of Impeachment, that Chairman John Conyers' Committee might well discuss the Impeachment Proposals presented by Kucinich. Formerly, the cautious Speaker Pelosi had said, "Impeachment is off the table." The Speaker may also be driven by a combination of conscience, re-election challenges on the Impeachment issue in her home district (San Francisco) by Peace Activist Cindy Sheehan and others, or the new evidence of massive criminal and treasonous actions carried on by President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their Administration. Speaker Pelosi predicted that the matter would never reach the House Floor. But we might change that, too. Whatever did it, keep those phone calls going to the Judiciary Committee: Committee Email: http://judiciary.house.gov Committee Phone: 202-225-3951 Individual Numbers: John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) Chair 202-225-5126
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) 202-225-5635
Melvin L. Watt (D-NC) 202-225-1510
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) 202-225-3072
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) 202-225-7931
Howard Coble (R-NC) 202-225-3065
Trent Franks (R-AZ) 202-225-4576
Your actions may influence these Members to act. They have in their hands literally the power to bring to the beginnings of justice the most corrupt Administration in American History, and to restore the Constitution, to save the Republic.
- Login Or register To Post Comments
- Send To A Friend
RSS- Bookmark With:







Natasha Bauman says:
Good news!
Thank you for posting this info! I will call everyone on the list Monday, and I'll tell everyone I know to do the same.
Alex Fraser says:
Natasha Bauman's Comment on Bush/Chaney Impeachments
Dear Natasha: Thank you. Bring all your friends here, and then get them busy, too, on Monday! This strange activity, so seldom practiced in America, is called DEMOCRACY!
In action, I am, with you --
Macresarf1 -- Glenn Anders -- Alex Fraser
sonshi (not verified) says:
You can take care of Bush later
For now, use your energy to get Obama elected.
Alex Fraser says:
Later in the American System Is Usually NEVER:
Thank you, Thomas, for your reply, but Barack Obama, even if he is cracked up to what he's supposed to be, will enter a governance system, which under the Constitution, is supposed to protect all the people. In fact, over the history of the nation, the system has generally only served the elite. Only a few times, when the economic system was in extreme peril, have the leaders done right by most of our citizens. The last time was under the New Deal in the Great Depression. That program was not perfect, but it was more equitable than the mounting greed of the last forty years. [Do you not remember the disdain shown for democratic niceties at the beginning of the GWB Presidency, all the "signing statements" and abrogation of solemn treaties?]
No matter what the facts of the matters might have been, the Rise of the Military-Industrial Complex which Eisenhower warned against was ignored, questions about the Assassinations of the 1960's were dismissed as "conspiracy theories. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which LBJ kept under his pillow until an appropriate moment, was not examined until years later, after the death of 57,000 (mostly) conscripts. "Watergate" really was treated like a "third rate burglary," My-Lai as an isolated incident, and the question of who declares war under our system put in the dead letter file. The sober, "conservative" Reagan Administration increased the National Debt more than all the Presidents had up to that time, starting a practice of cutting taxes for the rich and borrowing funds to cover shortfalls from the Chinese, etc, and seeing to it that Iran-Contra was hidden by the President's War Powers Act of "deniability" under the law. The reasons for President George H.W. Bush's Gulf War were never seriously questioned. That led to the preemptive attacks against sovereign states in response to tribal acts , which, if allowed to continue, will destroy the Nation State as we have known it from the 17th Century.
Thomas, do you not see that all of this "let's move on," "forget old news" has culminated in the George W. Bush Administration, truly the most corrupt, incompetent outfit we have ever suffered? It has cost in cold fact, a nearly doubling of the National Debt, a three trillion dollar unnecessary war, built on lies, 4,165(?) dead American Service Personel, 30,000 wounded, and a million innocent civilian casualties -- with according to Our President, and his Presumptive successor, John McCain, up to a hundred more years of this stuff.
That's nuts! Impeach and indict, I say.
Obama may be great -- but on what competitive scale. He strikes me as a very "cool" politician who will do whatever puts him and keeps him in office. I'm pragmatist enough to know that some of that is necessary, but hard-eyed enough to realize that, given the colossal f*uck-up of the last eight years, that is not enough.
We have to prosecute the miscreants of our present Administration to the full extent of the law, or else, President Obama may be sorely tempted to continue to violate the Constitution of the United States, and continue our move -- even inadvertently -- toward the imperial solution all great nations have tended toward since Alexander crushed the Greek democratic states, and invaded Persia, insuring after his romantic George Bush-like adventures in Central Asia, that the Roman Empire would become a reality.
Do you just want to roll the dice with Obama, Thomas? I don't. I'm too old to gladly go into the gutter of our failed "supply side" economy, and the confrontations with China and India which will ensue.
Impeachment Hearings now. Indictments later, on a massive scale, so that it will be decades before another group of religious fanatics and neo-conservatives attempt again to turn us into a "democratic executive dictatorship"!
Alex
Macresarf1 -- Glenn Anders -- Alex Fraser
sonshi (not verified) says:
My reply
Alex, there isn't a word of what you said above that I disagree with you on. If we're able to, let's proceed with Kucinich's motion. I think Pelosi is doing her job as representative of the American people; if we want it, we'll get it because they want to remain where they are.
I just wonder whether impeachment is something that Americans want over other matters. Seriously.
You and I may feel passionate about forcing Bush out but there are Americans now who can't afford to fill their gas tanks, worry about raising their kids right, anxious about the stability of their jobs (if they have one). Bush, even if he's impeached, will do just fine. You must admit for some of his supporters that if he drops a nuclear bomb on Nebraska right now, he'd still be considered a "Great President." "Yup, Bush may not be the smartest President and he makes wrong decisions but at least he sticks with his principles! And he's a Christian!" Those are the kinds of ignorant folks we're dealing with here. You may not come in contact with them in your daily life; I do all the time.
So it's a matter of priorities. I believe first priority is making sure Obama is elected, which by the way, he will be. It's his election to lose. Also, about "rolling the dice" on Obama. He has shown intelligence and he has shown that he has confidence in Americans' intelligence. (Consider, for example, how he made his career decisions. If you don't know, read up on it.) He kept on his intricate message when he was 30 points down and intelligent Americans like you and me were impressed. That's where all the passion about his candidacy is coming from, not because of his race or other superficial attributes.
Plus, Alex, if you follow Obama, he is nowhere close to a typical candidate. Not because of his personality because politicians are politicians. They say and do things to get elected. That's true. However, Obama is different in how he has set up his campaign. He is the first candidate I have ever voted for who is almost exclusively supported by small donors. I think the average was about $200 per supporter. When he's US President, guess who he's accountable for? No one but the countless people who helped put him there. He will then have the confidence to break the normal deadlock you see so often in the past, where the greedy big cats who gave big bucks get their pet legislation passed even if the public doesn't want it. With Obama, they'll be sweating ... like Bush when we turn the wheels on him later.
Alex Fraser says:
Status Quo? Reaction? Change? Progress?
Dear Thomas: I wrote a long reply to your latest comment, but somehow lost it, and so, rather than attempting to re-construct it from memory, I'll try to be more concise:
Almost 250 years ago, the people who invented America added changes to the original Constitution, which represented progress in the form of the Bill of Rights.
For the next seventy years, as the Nation expanded, we maintained a status quo, ignoring the question of the Native American, and the fact that in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, we maintained the institution of Slavery; or that we had grabbed a quarter of the Nation from a fledgling democracy in our Southwestern Mexican War.
The Civil War brought great, noble and terrible change. The slaves were freed and made citizens, representing progress, and we took on the form of a real modern nation by preserving the Union. In terms of reaction, however, our next fifty years saw the Native Americans slaughtered, Corporatism born, the Robber Barons taking control of Government and the Economy, while the Social Darwinists planned American hegemony and World expansion, culminating in a series of assassinations (or attempted assassinations), the Spanish American War and our involvement in World War I.
In reaction to consequent heady, reckless change which brought the progress of women's suffrage and a new sense of freedom and economic license, came the Red Scare, the Rise of Organized Crime, and the Great Depression. Then, in the face of our most terrible economic collapse up to then, perhaps for the first and only time since the American Revolution, the people as a whole rejected reaction, the "status quo," and in the form of the New Deal, met our economic, social, and political obligations head-on in a tremendous surge of reform, change and progress, which was interrupted only by World War II.
[But in all these years, we should remember working people still lived and died in horrendous conditions beyond the growing power of Unions and Government to help them, and that every week from the 1880's until after World War II, one or more black men were lynched while law enforcement and religious leaders largely looked the other way.]
After the War, forces of reaction again began to turn back the clock, and spurred by threats to them of democratic change represented by the GI Bill, the sexual and civil rights revolutions, started to repeal the progress of the New Deal, and to consolidate America's domination in the World by corruption of the Marshall Plan and other democratic gestures, publicizing through the new Mass Media a series of "threats," real or imagined: The Cold War, Communism, our "loss of China, Korea, Sputnik, the new Red Scare, Cuba, the 1960's Assassinations, Vietnam, drugs, Organized Crime, the Rise of OPEC, the Evil Empire, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, the Gulf War.
It all ended in a quiet, catastrophic change of the triumph of Corporatism during the Clinton Administration, the acceptance into our political process of divisive religious extremism in the face of 9/11, and finally our descent into criminal and fascist reaction during these last seven years of the Administration of George W. Bush, utilizing the vehicle of The Project for a New American Century.
At each stage, but with increasing pulse, there have been crises which demanded address: change? progress?
We didn't get either. We got disguised status quo or more reaction.
Since World War II, we have had the following threats to the development and maintenance of our democracy: McCarthyism, Assassinations, The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the War Powers Controversy, Watergate, Iran-Contra, the excesses of "Supply Side Economics," and a series of military interventions largely unsanctioned by Congress, which has led us to the horrible mess we are in.
Status Quo? Reaction? Change? Progress?
At this moment, we stand on the edge of economic catastrophe, the exhaustion of our energy resources, military humiliation or nuclear war, the collapse of our Foreign Policy, the abrogation of our Bill of Rights, environmental degradation on an unparalleled scale, and the acceptance of democratic fascism as our form of government: the End of the Republic.
Thomas: I, too, praise Obama, but in his "cool," attractive personal progress, I see virtually nothing to suggest that he is really aware of our situation. Nor that he has a governmental and economic "Manhattan Project" which true Conservatives are demanding, or "A New Deal for the 21st Century" that Progressives require. Without either from Obama (or McCain), it is hard to see how we can muddle through the next few years, sinking deeper into domestic fascism, mindless consumerism, increasing tribalism and religious cult divisions, and nuclear or environmental disaster -- but we might, and that would be most damning of all. Because the Armageddon so close to the Neocons (and the Islamist Extremists) would be insured.
Calvinism, Capitalism and Fascism Triumphant!
It is for that reason, House Judiciary Committee Hearings on Dennis Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment (and subsequent indictments and prosecution of literally hundreds of corrupt officials) is crucially necessary. Otherwise, Obama will be sabotaged for the next four years by Machiavellian criminals in place throughout his Administration. And the disastrous prologue of the past sixty years will become our grave.
As for Obama's being a "different kind of politician," he certainly sounds like it in his rhetoric and represents the "new populism" in his fund raising. [How typically American that we judge him primarily by style and where he gets his money from. Actually, he is (now) DNC Chairman Howard Dean's candidate, in those regards.] His lack of a big comprehensive plan, and his willingness to back of on FISA and from the gun lobby suggests that he sees no contradiction in taking your 250 bucks and my twenty-five as he accepts hundreds of thousands from the Utilities or the Arms industries.
The basic status quo may be made to look like change, but even change is not necessarily progress, and Obama, so far, gives no evidence that he really knows, and is prepared to deal with the fact, that we are deeply mired in reactionary quicksand.
A lot of good, patriotic Americans in the Dakotas or Oklahoma or Georgia, etc, are beginning to get the fix we're in, too.
Macresarf1 -- Glenn Anders -- Alex Fraser