Conyers Threatens Bush with IMPEACHMENT in Letter over Iran

Conyers Threatens Bush with IMPEACHMENT in Letter over Iran

David Swanson over at AfterDowneyStreet.org posted Conyers’ letter:

May 8, 2008
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing to register our strong opposition to possible unilateral, preemptive military action against other nations by the Executive Branch without Congressional authorization. As you know, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power "to declare war," to lay and collect taxes to "provide for the common defense" and general welfare of the United States, to "raise and support armies," to "provide and maintain a navy," to "make rules for the regulation for the land and naval forces," to "provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions," to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia," and to "make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution ... all ... powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States." Congress is also given exclusive power over the purse. The Constitution says, "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

By contrast, the sole war powers granted to the Executive Branch through the President can be found in Article II, Section, which states, "The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States." Nothing in the history of the "Commander-in-Chief" clause suggests that the authors of the provision intended it to grant the Executive Branch the authority to engage U.S. forces in military action whenever and wherever it sees fit without any prior authorization from Congress.

In our view, the founders of our country intended this power to allow the President to repel sudden attacks and immediate threats, not to unilaterally launch, without congressional approval, preemptive military actions against foreign countries. As former Republican Representative Mickey Edwards recently wrote, "he decision to go to war ... is the single most difficult choice any public official can be called upon to make. That is precisely why the nation’s Founders, aware of the deadly wars of Europe, deliberately withheld from the executive branch the power to engage in war unless such action was expressly approved by the people themselves, through their representatives in Congress."

Members of Congress, including the signatories of this letter, have previously expressed concern about this issue. On April 25, 2006, sixty-two Members of Congress joined in a bipartisan letter that called on you to seek congressional approval before making any preemptive military strikes against Iran. Fifty-seven Members of Congress have co-sponsored H. Con. Res. 33, which expresses the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress.

Our concerns in this area have been heightened by more recent events. The resignation in mid-March of Admiral William J. "Fox" Fallon from the head of U.S. Central Command, which was reportedly linked to a magazine article that portrayed him as the only person who might stop your Administration from waging preemptive war against Iran, has renewed widespread concerns that your Administration is unilaterally planning for military action against that country. This is despite the fact that the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, a stark reversal of previous Administration assessments.

As we and others have continued to review troubling legal memoranda and other materials from your Administration asserting the power of the President to take unilateral action, moreover, our concerns have increased still further. For example, although federal law is clear that proceeding under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance" can be conducted within the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f), the Justice Department has asserted that the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping in violation of FISA is "supported by the President’s well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs". As one legal expert has explained, your Administration’s "preventive paradigm" has asserted "unchecked unilateral power" by the Executive Branch and violated "universal prohibitions on torture, disappearance, and the like."

Late last year, Senator Joseph Biden stated unequivocally that "the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach" the president.

We agree with Senator Biden, and it is our view that if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued. Because of these concerns, we request the opportunity to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss these matters. As we have recently marked the fifth year since the invasion of Iraq, and the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq, your Administration should not unilaterally involve this country in yet another military conflict that promises high costs to American blood and treasure.

Sincerely,
The Honorable John Conyers
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee


http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33389

eom

Vote? What happened to that jewel that was suppose to come out of your committee?

Anyone know?

Let's go ahead and pursue those impeachment proceedings

I think he's worn out that cardboard-cutout saber he keeps rattling

...over the last six years or so. Absolutely fucking meaningless.

Does Conyers HAVE to address him as "The Honorable George W. Bush"? Couldn't he say "Resident George W. Bush" then write in "oops-typo- sorry" ? ;)

Neither of them are honorable. They are part of the same dog and pony show.

Conyers knows that Bush should have already been Impeached. He writes(asks his staff to write) these letters to fool us into thinking there is an opposition. If he wanted to stop a war, he would not have voted for the "Iran Freedom Support Act" We need to start realizing that part of the PNAC plan was to install their own 'opposition'.

impeachment charges have been brought forward on that person.
If, for example he wants to pardon Cheney but impeachment charges have been brought against him, Bush can't.
Is the ONLY reason we have impeachment to punish a guy for getting a bj? Why does it even exist?

I used to think about this but recently it has seemed unlikely.
If he did, what would it do to the elections?
Would Bush try to delay them so he can 'finish' his new war?

Does Conyers know something we don't?

Sy Hersch has been warning us that it was the Bush Regime's plans to launch war against Iraq AND Iran using various lies and manipulation (like Israel declaring war against Lebanon in the hopes that the Israeli people had an appetite for war - they did. For ONE WEEK and then they demanded the government pull out of Lebanon, remember?)to that end.

Sy Hersch even predicted Israel would attack Lebanon and blame Iran for supporting them to commit terrorism against Israel so that the Bush regime had an excuse to attack Iran.

None of that worked.

Now, having secured a "Yea" vote for the Kyl/Lieberman Amendment that effectively gave Bush a "back-door" authorization for war with Iran.

(1) The expected meltdown in the bond market would precipitate capital flight from the U.S. And when capital flight finally happens, it's all over for the U.S. October is traditionally the shakiest month for the NYSE. Not only is October the month when most NYSE crises occur historically, but October is the worst performing month consistently overall. So an October meltdown could be potentially "blamed" on "Iran attacking us" in September, to which the U.S. would of course retaliate with rabid pleasure.

(2) September is, of course, the patriotic month. A September "retaliation" against Iran would be the Last Hurrah for 9/11 nostalgics. And the Cheneyists' final chance to capitalize on September Sentiment.

(3) An Autumn attack on Iran would presumably rally the Right Wing base for McCain, and the GOP would try to capitalize on McSame's "strong foriegn policy credentials."

(4) If some sort of "Authorization Vote" could be hastily arranged upon a False Flag "Iranian attack," then such an "Authorization Vote" could be used to push Barack Obama into a corner: If he votes in favor of an attack on Iran, he will tarnish his anti-war cred with the Democratic base. But if he fails to vote for an attack on Iran, he will be painted with the "weak on defense" brush. Barack will be damned whichever way he votes -- and although #3 will likely backfire on the GOP since voters will (I predict) flee McCain and the GOP in droves upon an Iran Attack, nevertheless, the GOP could further divide Barack supporters and damage his Presidency before it begins.

Incidentally, if any Iran Attack occurs, there would likely be a unified European front against the U.S. resulting in UN sanctions (!) and particularly economic sanctions, further destroying the U.S. economic conditions -- which will, exactly like the Treaty of Versailles damned the Weimar Republic after WW1, play straight into the hands of the NeoNazi/Neocon faction and mobilize redneck support for an Ultra-Right-Wing strongman.

It is not off base to say that Bush didn't need much evidence to go into Iraq. It is also not a far reach to suggest that Bush doesn't have a problem lying to the American people to do it.

I am having a hard time believing your entire argument on its face. However, I will speak to the one about Obama #4: The counterculture candidate.

Hillary Clinton rattled the saber against Iran already, went so far as to say she'd obliterate Iran. I didn't think that was particularly helpful or useful language to walk us away from the ledge.


What would you have Obama do?

He has already solidified the anti-war vote in the Democratic primary. He is trying to reach across the aisle the hawk party folks to say ONLY REASONABLE FORCE ON AGGRESSIVE (or imagined) ATTACKS. Should he say something like Clinton to appeal to do them?

Democrats have already received three election seats in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Illinois from voters who believe REASONABLE FORCE is more important than diplomacy.

Relax (not because it isn't a serious issue, it is). It is a concern that Bush has been rattling the saber lately (imminent versus immediate is the problem). It is also true that Bush has been talking junk against Iran since we went into Iraq (transparent Iran would be a problem if the U.S. went into Baghdad). Is this threat more clear and present than it is was when Bush first started rattling that saber?


My answer is no.

If Bush has received some sort of reassurance from Congress that they'd support him attacking another sovereign nation, it is not apparent. The reason he can't attack is the same reason he could go to war against Iraq: the Congress had to comply. He doesn't have the votes.

It is Conyers that is huffily saying to the public: This discussion is going on. Most of us won't go on record and talk about it. I am making my protest clear and up front.


For those of you who are saying Conyers needs to put a sock in it, I'd say to you how did Republicans stir up enough people to get Clinton impeached? Every time Clinton did something, they'd repeat Clinton needs to resign. They made it sound like Clinton was such a disgrace that we, the people, needed to be just as upset. Conyers is doing the same thing. If you are upset that it hasn't happened yet, watch for the signs when Bush says Iran is an imminent threat and plans to bomb Iran.

As far as I know the balance/separation of powers requires Bush to have a bigger fig leaf than saying he can do whatever he wants. As far as I know, we are still a democracy.

Scott Ritter says we will go after Iran also. When has the death penalty ever been a deterrent to murder? Because sociopaths don't give a hoot. Bush said a long time ago that the Iran situation would be dealt with because no other administration will. The drums of war are getting louder now.

"....if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued."

Call me a cynical bitch, but why do I have this feeling something will conveniently happen that will force Congress to grant "the constitutionally required congressional authorization?"



On edit: add the word "conveniently"

...sound and fury...

Congress STUPIDLY handed Bush** a bigger stick to poke in the hornet's nest in February. Conyers et al won't have a leg to stand on if a false flag attack or a real response comes from Iran as a result of these covert ops and Bush** launches air attacks.

Democrats Okay Funds for Covert Ops

Secret Bush "Finding" Widens War on Iran

By ANDREW COCKBURN

Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, "unprecedented in its scope."

Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department's list of terrorist groups.

Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or "army of god," the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan – just across the Afghan border -- whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother in law's throat.

Other elements that will benefit from U.S. largesse and advice include Iranian Kurdish nationalists, as well the Ahwazi arabs of south west Iran. Further afield, operations against Iran's Hezbollah allies in Lebanon will be stepped up, along with efforts to destabilize the Syrian regime.

All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees. That has not proved a problem. An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy.

more: http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew05022008.html

edited to highlight the relevant paragraph

will launch a strike anyway (unless patriotic military brass stand in the way), and then count on the American people to rally 'round the flag the way they usually do in a new war, thus making it politically risky for the Dems in Congress to initiate impeachment. The Dems might actually follow through anyway, but it is clear that the Chenybush administration do not believe that they will, since they never have before. So Chenybush will go ahead and do what they want to do and assume there will be no consequences.

happenings, is that there remain some sane officers to stand in the way of another war.

The letter loses its oomph by saying "should" instead of "will" and Conyers should have defied Ms. Off-the-Table and had impeachment hearing long ago.

A pox on all the politicians and military brass who've put their careers ahead of the welfare of our country and the lives of Iraqi citizens and US soldiers.

Peace,

freefall

I can feel them shaking in their boots right now....

by a threat of impeachment should he ever run afoul of the Constitution, the rule of law, international law, or treaty. Rather I wonder what Conyers has been smoking. :D

He is a bullshitter and a liar.
"Finally, in perhaps his worst betrayal yet, Sanders joined a host of liberal Democrats including Barbara Lee and John Conyers to vote for HR 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act -- which bears a striking resemblance to the resolutions that set up the framework for the war on Iraq. The act stipulates that the U.S. should impose sanctions on Iran to prevent it from developing weapons of mass destruction and distributing them to aid international terrorism. It also calls for the U.S. to support democratic change in the country, thereby establishing all necessary pretexts for a war on Iran. Democrat Dennis Kucinich voted against the act and denounced it as a “stepping stone to war.”"

Conyers already promised to pursue Impeachment if we won the House for the Dems in 2006, now he is the one holding it up.

I still can't figure out why Kucinich held up introducing Impeachment of Bush saying he thought Conyers would act.

Because they only thing wrong about bombing another country before they attack you (which is what pre-emptive means) is not having permission. But hey, get permission and you can pre-emptively bomb all the countries you want to bomb. Because it's not like we disapprove of attacking and invading countries that haven't done anything to us, we just like to be ones that give the go ahead. So get permission - or else!

We let you have Iraq but, dagnabbit, you can't have Iran. You get to torture, illegally detain, use extraordinary rendition, and spy on Americans. But you can't have Iran. You get to destroy documents, without documents, and lose emails - and you even get to claim you never kept emails you were legally required to keep, but you unequivocally - absolutely - positively - can't cross this line! Or else!

and the crowd cheers...they go wild....they have never witnessed or felt such passion and dedication before...oh, a new day is dawning. Surely, a change is a coming.

Meanwhile, back at the White House, the "go fuck yourself" chorus can be heard.

but this seems to be the only way to keep this crazed mis-Administration in check. Bush and Cheney no doubt want to go out with a bang, and we need to hit them back just as hard.

For shit sakes! Why wait until they do it, you know they are gona! Son of a bitch!

:argh:

Someone needs to tell the congressman that actions speak louder than words.

they should all know now they are up against a total unfit person to hold office. Kick his ass out now!!!

YAWN

TO think we actually believed in this guy back then. I even had his pic for my avatar.

Sheeesh. How many does this make?

He talks, he holds meetings, he holds hearings, he makes noise, he turns over and goes back to sleep.

STOP TALKING ABOUT IT. DO IT.

:rofl:

Oh now I see, the ROTFLMAO thingy!! Bush will do that too!! How many time have these gutless turds threatened Bush now and done NOTHING about it?? I'm tired of these wimpy limpdicks!! Let's impeach anyone who won't do their Constitutional duty to impeach the Criminal in Chief!!!

with an enemy we made dangerous by our actions...won't happen, can't happen!

over at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org posted Conyers’ letter.

another one of those scary letters from Congress!"

yawn....

by the tyrants in the Executive office.

when is enough enough, cause I have had it!!

"impeachment proceedings should be pursued" to "WILL ABSOLUTELY BE PURSUED". Otherwise, hooray! :kick: K&R!

We've been through this swamp before with Conyers.

Hey John - did you get Nancy's WRITTEN PERMISSION to say this FIRST?

How many opportunities have they let slide away?

What is scary is trying to imagine what this evil cabal will be up to for many years to come because they were not brought to justice.

The zanys and shrubbies have barely begun to fuck with the world.

Impeachment would be "harmful to National Security", chimpy would never allow it.

And our "Representatives" wouldn't want to look weak on "National Security" now would they?

On the bright side:
It looks like he won't be able to hide in Paraguay now, and the international communities are sharpening their knives as we speak.

They have been in there plotting for decades. Now they are ALL the way in setting their thing up for even more decades.

Paraguay? There is no border they won't manipulate with their private armies. They also have people in our military and secret service who will see to it that they continue to rule beyond borders.

They don't have to be in office now to continue to run the show. They will just make sure that whatever politician gets in is one they are able to control one way or the other.

Who will take back our government from the mouths of their corporations? The elite and their corporate giants will NOT kindly step aside. They control the destiny of the people of the Earth. They know no borders or national sentiment.

I don't hear the candidates who are allowed to run at this point talking about rescuing our Democracy from the corporate jaws.

Sorry for the rant, I haven't done one of these for awhile here.

:hi:

would be over worked and in need of major hazard pay.

Here's to hoping for a peaceful transfer of power.
:toast:

should read, 'the effing asshole cretin dimwit jorge boosh!!'

Honorable John Conyers, bravo, you told him! That should teach him! Now, why is Iran more troublesome than Iraq? Impeach NOW! Don't take us for suckers! We know your letter is going to be used as TP in the Bush/Chenney administration. Unless, you poisoned the paper itself so that when they use it it hurts, I don't see the point.

Whatever you're doing, it is better then nothing, but the country demands for more than that!

They have already started the march to another war. I am ashamed of our government.



k&r anyway!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So rare, we get so excited when one of our leaders does his job. I'll take what we can get in that regard and work for more.

sent this in registered mail with a signature request,if not it was shitcanned.

and now is chairing the committee that will not allow the impeach Cheney bill to be voted on?

I though so.
:eyes:

:(

it wouldn't be a freaking issue, now would it?

Boy, that will make Bush shape up!! Shit or get off the pot Conyers!!! Another mealy mouth letter don't mean shit unless you back it up with action!! Otherwise you are bluffing and full of bullshit once again. Grow a spine and JUST DO IT!!!

:nuke:

bu$h doesn't abide by the Constitution and Congress has not forced him to.

Maybe this time something will stick

wasn't this type of hubris expected with "impeachment off the table"?

I think you've got the wrong congress.

Threats of impeachment and like always.... nothing will come of it.

This Democratically controlled Congress have shown they are nothing but cowards.

Hell, the Republican controlled Congress went after Bill with veracity over a god damn blow-job and here we have * and company with so many charges (where to start) and they haven't done diddly squat since they were swept 'INTO' majority.

So what you are seeing is nothing more than grand-standing for the sake of 'appearing' to do something....

Sorry, John.

You guys have had almost eight years to oppose Bush, and you've blown it. Your dereliction of duty -- funding the obscenity in Iraq, failing to curb abuses of our liberties -- rises to the level of collaboration.

Only the fully deluded think this threat has any weight. It doesn't scare Bush Co. For fuck's sake, Hillary Clinton's salivating over obliterating Iran -- are you going to impeach her, too, if she's the nuke-lobbing prez?

authorization to do so, and you know it. If impeachment should be on the table for Iran, it should have already been exercised for Iraq.

How long before you fold on this one?

and that letter is too complicated for shrub to understand, to many words.

zzzzzzzzzzz................
I'm sorry, did I miss something?
Oh, we're going to illegally bomb another country for no legitimate reason?
I guess they must deserve it - they are ay-rabs after all.
Sorry, I wasn't paying attention,
I was busy driving my Humvee to Piggly Wiggly to cash in on the 2 for 1 jumbo bags of Cheetos sale going on....

:/

So many people are sneering at the cowardice of Conyers and the Congress -- and the sneers are of course deserved. Conyers, Pelosi and the lot of them have been cowards.

But what are WE going to do about it when Bush attacks Iran in our name?

Are we going to send strongly worded letters of protest? Are we going to make angry posts on DU? Are we going to fume and fret and then go on with our daily lives as if nothing had changed?

In short, are we any different from Conyers?



Millions of people took to the streets before the Iraq War -- and when that failed to stop Bush, what happened? We gave up.

And that is why the politicians don't believe that they have to take action. And they are right. We are just as useless as Conyers as far as defending the Constitution is concerned.



When the Main Stream Media cranks up its wall to wall coverage of our Precision Surgical Strike to free the world from the threat of nuclear blackmail by the "madmen" who run Iran -- where will you be? What will you be doing?

Posting here about how Congress let you down?

I hear what you are saying, though. I think tasers and fear of abusive cops, etc., are scaring people from continuing to protest. IF, nay, WHEN it gets bad enough, however, it will pick back up, stronger than ever...

We are kindred spirits and I agree with your thought that when it gets bad enough, people will take action. What is bothering me is what it takes to make people say enough?

... before that, the Iraq invasion. Then we have Katrina, LIHOP/MIHOP, the erosion of our economy, a "dead" Congress, on and on. ANy one of those things should be enough on its own. Add them all together, and throw in countless other travesties and atrocities, it becomes overwhelming. Maybe everyone has rolled over and are playing dead. The MASSES should have risen up 4 years ago, if not before - and I thought they would. Only 150 people showed up here in Madison,WI, at a well-publicized, statewide protest against the 2nd STOLEN Presidential election!! ... that number represented one tenth of a percent of the residents of just the capital city. If more would join in these public demonstrations, we could gain some momentum and feel some solidarity, and hope. Otherwise it is demoralizing.

Here at DU, a forum for activists -- you know, people who take action -- dozens of posts pile up, all full of petulance and resentment against Conyers and the Congress, just wallowing in our powerless condition.

Sarcasm and cynicism will not build a movement.

I have no problem with anybody expressing disastisfaction with Conyers and Co. What I want to know is what is anybody going to do about it.

Stage a sit-in at Conyers office? Call his office and complain? All have been done. Where are the true radicals? What radical actions would be effective, if any?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/DaveT/14

Another idea that would work is if several million people surrounded the Congress and refused to let anyone in or out until they remove Bush and Cheney from office.

Obviously, the problem with either of these fantasies is getting people to do them. If we could get people to do them it would "work." But somehow or other we, collectively (including myself) would rather delegate our anger to Conyers and Olbermann and John Stewart and Michael Moore -- while going on with our daily lives.

This is always the fundamental question of social change -- when will people stop talking and start doing? I am just old enough to remember the Civil Rights campaigns of the 60s and the anti-war protests during Vietnam. I have seen it with my own eyes and I know it can happen.

I also saw it before the Iraq War started. Millions of people took action -- but when Bush started the war anyway, we just fell apart. And gave up hope . . . .



And the snarky sarcasm of this thread is all that I see. And it makes me sick at my stomach.

Also the idea of a mass sit-in. But how do we rally enough people have to do it so it makes an impact, causes problems? And who is "we"?

Of all the various depredations of the Bush regime, none has been so thorough as its plundering of hope.

That is it in a nutshell, and you are right, also, that the main complaint now is "It wouldn't do any good". I like your enthusiasm, and we need more like you to spark us again.:toast:

I think that is a great idea. A group of activists recently tried to stop loss Congress, not allowing them to go home until they did something. Only one Congressman would agree to it...Kucinich, but then even he left his office anyway.

We need larger numbers. We need our Military who truly knows what is going on to uphold their oath to defend the Constitution, not Bush's illegal wars. We need everyone together, but there is no organization in the anti-war movement.

Why? COINTELPRO controls the organizations, installs the leaders, then creates petty bickering and disorganization.

One million people in the Mall and maybe a blip on one evening news

It has to go farther if we hope to make a difference.

Those media HQs need to be stormed, if not the White House gates.

Sure people will get hurt, but that is the nature of revolution.

Is is better to let them pick us off one by one and slowly starved to death.

It's gonna take more foreclosures and body bags before it happens

if Putin and China don't force their hand.

And if they use nukes in Iran

That might just push them to it.

that is what they do by effectively cutting us off from each other, killing the momentum of nationwide protests. They apparently learned their lessons well from the 60s and were well-prepared... Unfortunately, it seems we didn't realize the game plan had changed.

We've been in Iraq 5 years. Death toll is at 4,000+. During the deadliest 5 year stretch of the Vietnam War, 51,515 American soldiers were killed. Our young men were being drafted. That combo was in itself enough to motivate masses of people to say "enough".

We need to elect new Democrats to represent US, ones who believe in Our Constitution, justice and the rule of law.
www.peacecandidates.com

Conyers runs unopposed, so why should he care?

If you don't see it in person you would never know. There is a domestic media blackout in the US. We had a coup, and our nation repossessed, by the ruling class. Nothing will happen until it's, once again, time to water the tree. Until then, enjoy this time that we will look back on as the good old days.

This is like trying to undo a jump off a cliff. Once it's done, you can't undo it.

They should be pursuing impeachment b/4 they can declare war on Iran.

B*co is determined to attack Iran. It's their last big plan. Even if a staged event must precipitate our attack. We should impeach Cheney & * b/4 this happens.

Time is running out.

8 months and he's out. But by then oil prices will probably be $200 pb. Mission Accomplished. Bush will likely move out of the country.

for being a WAR CRIMINAL.

Make sure his ancestors & "buddies" are taken care of by lining their pockets with HUGH oil profits. (By Buddies, I mean those here in Amurka & in the Mid East.)

And we know he's going to move to Paraguay. On top of one of the biggest aquafiers in the world, because.........water is the new oil.

:(

WE'll believe it when we see it.

Conyers job is to FAKE he wants impeachment

"radicals" like us in line.

He KNOWS we are ready to bolt, and he's peddling like crazy to give us just enough "hope" to keep us dangling.

All it does is weaken us.

a day or so ago about the military callign a presser to display all sorts of weapons captured in Iraq that they were saying were from Iran.

Only trouble was, they let some weapons experts get near them, and got a resounding "no way any of this shit came from Iran." The presser was cancelled.

Olberman mentioned it - gave the whistleblower "best person."

But after that.... crickets.


Folks, that was supposed to be, if not THE "staged event," at least a prelude to it.

I think Conyers timing is in reaction to that, and other recent ratcheting up of the rhetoric.

When they can't come up with an excuse, as the election draws near they'll just go ahead regardless.

Bush could care less. Madame Speaker has made it clear impeachment is off the table. The Empress. Serving the Emperor.

The only thing that is probably keeping this monster from declaring war on Iran is Saudi Arabia which realizes what a major mistake his declaring war on Iraq was - he can call it whatever he wants as can Congress but the reality is he declared war on a country that had not attacked us, had not threatened to attack us, and had no means by which to attack us. And he did so with the complicity of Congress.

I truly feel sorry for anyone who votes for Nancy Pelosi in November because they are voting for this administration when they do so.

All these threats to impeach mean nothing because of her - the Empress is sitting there shooting the bird at the American people along with the Emperor. Oblivious to the smoke around her as Rome burns.

Kim Jong Il: Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans?

Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind. I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.

Kim Jong Il: Or else what?

Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.

that all those subpoenas they have been issuing lately, absolutely nothing. Congress is a paper tiger.

While the letter is great, why did he say "should" be pursued and not "WILL" be pursued?

Come on team... GO! You can do it!

they won't do shit.

You can keep the comfy chair, the big office, and the prized parking space.

Just stop being the firewall for this torturing, war criminal regime.

---

:headbang:

it happens. Conyers et. al. have THREATENED impeachment and hearings hearing hearings... its all a bunch of crap. They won't do a thing. Even though they impressed me with their '100 days' strategy, they still didn't do enough, and the entire 'impeachment is off the table' crap...

Well, I'll dance naked in Marienplatz when it happens. But it ain't. They are still enabling the Bush crew. Thank goodness... I don't think anyone would REALLY want to see me naked.

would he remain pResident during the proceedings? Or would cheney come out from behind his curtain?

So yes, the bushkid -- and even a real president -- remains if office until found guilty in the Senate trial.

Of course, should they wish to spare the nation the indignity of what would be a "war crimes trial" in impeachment form, they could easily transition to a new "caretaker" regime by resigning. First cheney would resign, the Congress would confirm a replacement (likely Sen. Warner or Fmr. Sen. Danforth), then bush would resign in the only act of patriotism of his life.

All this could be done in a day or two.

Also, welcome to DU.

--

That and $3 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

It's "off the table." Obviously the Administration has damaging information on every Democrat in a leadership position, otherwise half the Administration would be hauled off in chains wearing orange jumpsuits.

...is to begin impeachment proceeding against Bush immediately.

There was an article posted here on DU several months ago (sorry, still searching for it, so no link yet) where a military officer quoted in the article made the point that IF impeachment proceedings were started against Bush, the administration (Cheney) and more importantly the military wouldn't be able to act until the impeachment proceedings were resolved.

The poster acknowledged that while impeachment may not be successful, the time it would take to resolve the impeachment issue would run the clock out on BushCo's term, thereby voiding BushCo's ability to instigate yet another preemptive war...

In other words, because Bush would be facing impeachment, the military commanders would be Constitutionally bound to follow the direction of Congress regarding any war action.

Does this make sense to any DUer out there who know this stuff much better than I?

There is no change in the military chain of command unless and until they are replaced. The poster may have been speculating on what some might try to do informally.

Impeachment by the House is merely a formal accusation. The Senate must convict for any power to change hands. However, the war criminals could well choose to resign at any time -- in a sequence that allows for an orderly transition to a new "caretaker" president. (Likely Sen. Warner or Fmr. Sen. Danforth.)

But impeachment is still the only way to prevent the invasion of Iran. And the only way to end Iraq even a day sooner, or to stop the ongong torture and war crimes, or to improve the economy in any way, or to ... well make progress on any front. Standing idle until "the new Dem president comes to save us" is a crime in itself.

And impeachment need not take more than a few days to do. This notion that impeachment must be long is just another DC-Dem rationalization for inaction.

--

Presidential succession is pretty clear and does not change because of impeachment and resignation. If Cheney and Bush were impeached at the same time or resigned at the same time then Nanci Pelosi would become President. If Bush resigned first and Cheney became President, cheney would have the opportunity to try to appoint a new Vice President to be approved by the senate. The senate would not have to approve the choice and could stonewall until Cheney was impeached or resigned. Likewise, if Cheney resigned first, there is nothing to say that the Senate would have to approve a VP choice until the matter with Bush was resolved. All of these scenarios would likely result in a President Pelosi.

An interesting thing once that happened is, Pelosi would have to resign her congressional seat to become President. (You cannot be a member of more than one branch of government at the same time). So, what happens on January 21, 2009 assuming the elections go off as planned? A new President takes office and Pelosi is out on the street with no elected position.

These mechanisms don't act autonomously. She cannot be made president against her will. And the machinations you describe involving the war criminals are virtually impossible as well. Whatever should come to pass, a simple transition to a Republican caretaker can easily be arranged to avoid the false "coup" appearance.

The resignation scenario I described is one in which the war criminals themselves decide to bow out gracefully, rather than be tossed out -- should it become clear that Senators will not publicly declare themselves supporters of torture and war crimes to the world, their families, and for history. BTW, this is not so remote a possibility as many believe -- should the DC Dems be cured of their impeachophobia.

Even if they fight to the end of the Senate trial, this "escape hatch" can be implemented in less than a day while the Senate "still deliberates." And if they still want to try to "force Pelosi in" (for what reason, I can't imagine), she can still have the House elect a new, Republican Speaker -- who will then be president. The House can then elect her Speaker again immediately following.

Just because they don't seem to behave rationally very often, doesn't mean they can't behave rationally when it's in everybody's interest to do so.

--

1 Vice President & President of the Senate Dick Cheney
2 Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi
3 President Pro Tempore of the Senate Robert Byrd
4 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
5 Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson
6 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
7 Attorney General Michael Mukasey
8 Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne
9 Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer
10 Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt
11 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Roy Bernardi
12 Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters
13 Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
14 Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
15 Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Peake
16 Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff

But the line of succession is there simply to preclude any uncertainty should a sudden tragedy strike. Which is why all of those people are not allowed to be in the same place at the same time -- one of them must, by law, even forgo attending the State of the Union address. But it is not a legal requirement enforced by armed men, nor is anyone compelled by any court to accept a post in which they are unwilling to serve.

What I'm talking about is what people might well actually do, should impeachment proceedings be undertaken.

The Dems can easily short-circuit any charges of "partisan coup" by simply having Pelosi declare that she will not take the oath of office and have Senator Byrd do the same, or, have the Senate elect a new, Republican President ProTemp. The latter would be preferable, as Rice is fully implicated in the crimes of the regime.

--

What was it that Hillary signed?

He won't do nothin...

a runaway president. Cheney will start WWIII and then move to Dubai.

If someone were to start impeachment proceedings, they'd need to at least be sure they had the votes for that impeachment.

You guys want someone to act?

Why not contact the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or speak out in terms of wrestling up the votes you'd need?

Conyers is not a hack nor is he a fraud. He worked longer than this to get other House business accomplished.

The people's house requires a majority. Have you been following how poorly the process of introducing and voting on legislation in the House lately?

It ain't pretty.

criminals are away with their ill-gotten gains.

That much is crystal clear.

It is an old political game, maybe the oldest. They stomp & shout & rant & rave & speechify when there is no chance of anything being accomplished, but when the worm turns, as it always does, suddenly there just isn't the same enthusiasm for taking action that there was when it was simply pandering for votes. Now, it is "impossible", "there aren't enough votes", the American people will not support such actions", etc.

"fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a thousand times, and I'm a dumb-ass begging to be screwed over".

I'll bet Dubya is quaking in his boots. Nicely written letter though.

do it already.

Impeach the fucktards... I mean I am waiting!!!!!