Swanson’s Article--Is Peace or Impeachment Possible?--Makes Clear that Pelosi’ Appeasement with Bush and Cheney is a NO-GO Zone for AmericansDemocrats
Swanson’s Article--Is Peace or Impeachment Possible?--Makes Clear that Pelosi’ Appeasement with Bush and Cheney is a NO-GO Zone for Americans and True Democrats
By Kevin Stoda
I was impressed as I read through David Swanson’s article entitled: “Is Peace or Impeachment Possible?”
First and foremost, Swanson attacks the Big Lies of Madison Avenue and Washington, D.C. in 2007:
Lie #1: The U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq now or very soon.
Swanson explains: “Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can announce tomorrow and could have announced nine months, several hundred troops, and tens of thousands of Iraqis ago, that they will not bring up any more bills to fund the occupation. A Republican proposal to fund the occupation could be blocked by 41, not 67, Senators. The Democrats could also pass bills ending the occupation or funding only the withdrawal and have them vetoed and pass them again and again. This is no secret and there is no dispute that Congress has this power. Senator Feingold held hearings at the start of the year at which experts overwhelmingly agreed that Congress can simply stop providing funding. Bush has plenty of money to bring the troops home, and Congress can provide new money for that purpose.”
I could kick myself—as should many of my fellow Americans—for failing to do this simple math required for measuring the support in the House and Senate for non-funding the war. In short, 80% of Americans want troops home now or soon. If more than 40% of Congressmen and Senators can’t support the WILL OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, they should be impeached, too.
Lie #2: Congress hasn’t got time, opportunity, or reason to impeach (first) Vice-President Dick Cheney and (second) President George W. Bush.
There are nearly two dozen cogent arguments which Swanson successfully makes concerning how and why Congress can and really must impeach the vice-president and then the president.
Some of these arguments are political. Others are based on the constitution. Others are based on doing what is simply right and supporting the dignity of the American people’s—i.e. Allowing Americans to becoming more fully proud of their country than has been the result of any act carried out by congress in Washington over the past many years.
Finally, there are arguments that are both humorous and true.
One of the early arguments in this article/speech comes from a historical perspective as Swanson reminds his audience, “You won’t hear much about it on the news, but a bill had been introduced in July to impeach Gonzales, and it was gaining support during the August recess. In fact a bunch of Congress Members added their names to the list of cosponsors this month even though Gonzales had already announced his resignation. This was not the first time that an effort to impeach helped force out an unjust attorney general. An effort to impeach Richard Nixon forced him out as well. An effort to impeach Harry Truman led to the Supreme Court checking his abuses of power. In fact the threat of impeachment is usually enough to restore a level of justice and democracy in Washington, D.C. A promise not to impeach, on the other hand, tends to encourage abuses of power and is itself an unconstitutional abuse of power.”
This is a basic fact.
The American response to the impeachment of Bill Clinton was the exception to the rule in terms of the public’s response to a congress threatening impeachment in over 200-years of American history. To a great degree, American’s certainly have supported their leaders when they are calling a spade a spade—or calling a criminal a criminal or calling a felon a felon (or a war-crime a war crime).
DON’T SEPARATE IMPEACHMENT FROM WITHDRAWAL!
A key point of Swanson’s article, “Is Peace or Impeachment Possible?”, is that:
Lie #3: Impeachment can be handled separately from ending the U.S.’s participation in the war in Iraq.
Swanson makes it clear that without impeachment (The Big Hammer) and willingness by Congress to stand up to a Republican minority’s attempt to keep this horrible war funded indefinitely, war will not end—moreover, nothing much else will get accomplished in 2007-2008 by congress in many other areas.
Worse still--especially for the Democratic Party--without impeachment and a drastic pullout of American participation in Iraq in 2008, Democrats will not do as well as they need to be doing in November 2008 elections. Moreover, the American movement to redeploy our own Bills of Rights in the Territory of the USA will be stalled.
Swanson states, “The purpose of impeachment is not just to take back control of our government, not just to end an occupation, not just to prevent an attack on Iran. The purpose of impeachment is to inform future presidents that they must obey laws. But this is not something that concerns many Congress members. Their chief concern tends to be whether the next president will belong to their party.”
Swanson, who used to work with Kucinich, adds, “Twenty Congress members have signed onto H Res 333, Dennis Kucinich's bill to impeach Cheney. Many more signed onto the Gonzales bill or signed on during the last Congress to the Conyers bill for a preliminary impeachment investigation. And others have said publicly or privately that they favor impeachment. But these members have not signed onto Kucinich's bill on Cheney and have not introduced their own on Cheney or Bush. I've spoken to a lot of them and their staff and to constituents who've spoken to them. They have about 15 excuses, most of which are very easily rejected, a few of which it is going to be very hard but not impossible for us to get around.”
Swanson currently works with a website which has a good pulse on what American’s wants and needs from Congress. Look at it at: http://www.democrats.com/
The site at Democrats.com shows today the following results. Only 2% of Americans feel that Bush should get $200 billion more dollars to continue to fund the war—without conditions.
Meanwhile 83%, of those participating in the poll, feel that Bush should be required to use existing funds to bring U.S. Troops home within 6 months. An additional 13% said that perhaps Congress should give Bush $50 Billion to bring troops home within six months.
Swanson also emphasizes the fact that “[s]eventy-nine Congress members, including only two Floridians, Corrine Brown and Alcee Hastings, have signed a letter saying they won't vote for more money unless it "redeploys" the troops by January 2009. This effort is led by Progressive Caucus chairs Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey. Woolsey is getting a lot of heat in DC right now because someone published the transcript of a private conference call on which she advocated pushing primary challenges to pro-war Democrats. But Lynn is not only right morally. Hers is a pro-Democratic Party position. Primaries are good for a party as well as a country.”
HOW IMPEACHMENT PROPONENTS SHOULD RESPOND!
Swanson ends his article by indicating how Americans, who are really serious about taking back our nation’s great traditions in human-, constitutional-, and civil rights, needing to be responding to the status-quo in Washington and in the USA media forums.
Swanson lists 15 excuses by adversaries give for not supporting IMPEACHMENT NOW. Supporters of just politics in America should learn to respond as quickly and refreshingly as Swanson does in this article:
Excuse #1: You can't judge articles of impeachment prior to a committee investigation. That gets the process out of order:
A bill calling for impeachment, explains Swanson, “would not have to be wholly devoid of content. It could suggest the area or areas of inquiry.”
Excuse #2: We don't have all the facts we need in order to impeach.
Swanson: “Well, of course that's what an impeachment investigation is for. But in fact we do have the facts. The Judiciary Committee passed an article of impeachment against Nixon for refusing to comply with subpoenas. Bush and Cheney and Rice have indisputably refused to comply with subpoenas.” Swanson adds, “He [Bush] and Cheney are on videotape lying about the reasons for war, and the evidence that they knew they were lying is overwhelming. That is the impeachable offense our founding fathers most worried about. James Madison and George Mason both argued as well at the Constitutional Convention that impeachment would be needed if a president ever pardoned a crime that he himself was involved in.”
Excuse #3: Impeachment would take too long.
Swanson: “Nixon took 3 months. Clinton took 2. They've spent 9 thus far avoiding it, and with very little to show for it. Impeachment for refusal to comply with subpoenas would take one day.”
Excuse #4: Impeachment would distract from other things.
Swanson: “Yeah? Like what? Since when is restoring the Bill of Rights a distraction? A distraction from funding wars and legalizing spying is fine with me. A distraction from passing bills that will be vetoed does not worry me.”
Excuse #5: We need to focus on ending the war.
Swanson: “OK, but if you focus on ending the war for two full years and don't actually end it, I wish you luck getting people to turn out next November. When Congress moved toward impeachment of Nixon, it found the nerve to end a war, and he backed off on his veto threats. Congress passed a menu of progressive legislation in part because of, not despite, the impeachment threat hanging over Nixon. And ultimately of course impeachment is going to be needed to end the current occupation of Iraq.”
Excuse #6: Impeachment would be divisive.
Swanson: “Actually that's not true among Democrats. Eighty percent favor impeachment. But as far as bipartisan harmony on Capitol Hill goes, the dangers of creating divisiveness is sort of like the danger of violence breaking out if we leave Iraq. It's too late already! And it's too late because the Republicans never give a damn for bipartisan harmony.” Swanson also remarks, “John Nichols says: impeachment is not a constitutional crisis. It's the cure for the one we're in. Aspirin is not a headache crisis. Impeachment is not a constitutional crisis.”
Excuse #7: We don't have the votes in the House to impeach.
Swanson: Well, you would if Pelosi whipped on it. And Congress members back bills all the time that are not predicted to pass. If their colleagues fail to join them, that's between their colleagues and their colleagues' constituents. And again, impeachment usually does its work without getting all the way to impeachment. A move to impeach for refusal to comply with subpoenas, for example, might result in compliance with subpoenas. And it is the only thing that might.”
Excuse #8: We don't have the votes in the Senate to convict.
Swanson: “Well, you might if you put the crimes on television and if the house impeached. But you would do good for the nation and Democrats would do good for their party even with a Senate acquittal. Nothing would better identify for the public the Senators who need to be thrown out of office. And impeachment even without conviction would reverse the public perception of Democrats as having no spine. They may hold even in the next election without impeaching anyone or getting us out of Iraq, but if they want to win new seats, and if they want to win the White House with a large enough margin to not have the election stolen, they will reverse their current position and act!”
Excuse #9: I won't sign onto Kucinich's bill because he hasn't asked me to, and he's a liberal, and he's running for president.
Swanson: “We expect you to sign onto a bill based on the merits of it, or to introduce your own.”
Excuse #10: You can't impeach over policy differences because you don't like war. You have to impeach for a crime.
Swanson: “Well, Kucinich's bill charges Cheney with the felony that involves misleading Congress and with the crime of threatening war on Iran. Cheney is on videotape doing so. Conyers' book lists lots of felonies. But in fact, not every crime is an impeachable offense and not every impeachable offense is a crime. When Nixon cheated on his taxes or Clinton cheated on his wife and lied about it under oath, no impeachable offenses were committed. When Nixon lied to the public or when Bush ignored warnings prior to 9/11, no crimes were committed, but the offenses were impeachable.”
Excuse #11: If I backed impeachment, the media would be mean to me.
Swanson: “Yes, Congressman; Yes, Congresswoman. And if you don't people will die. Which is worse? A majority backs impeachment now for Cheney and a majority or close to it for Bush. Those numbers will go up, not down, if you act, regardless of what the media says. You know those 18 percent of Americans who approve of the job you're doing? Even they don't like the media. No campaign email raises more money than one that begins, ‘Fox News just attacked me.’”
Excuse #12: Impeachment would make Bush and Cheney sympathetic and rally people around them.
Swanson: “I think Congress should start with Cheney and watch as Republicans are forced to abandon him. The Republicans would have done this to the Democrats years ago. The idea that impeachment would help Bush and Cheney originated in Republican National Committee talking points published in May 2006. Pelosi immediately adopted the idea as her own. It flies in the face of the historical record. When the Republicans have moved impeachment, as against Truman for example, they've benefited at the polls. When the Democrats tried to impeach Nixon, who was popular compared to Cheney or Bush, they won huge victories. When they promised not to impeach Reagan, they lost in the next elections. The exceptional case is the Clinton impeachment which was uniquely unpopular. Nonetheless, the Republicans hung onto both houses of Congress and the White House.”
Excuse #13: Impeachment would remind people of Bill Clinton.
Swanson: “[C]ompared to Bush and Cheney he looks like a saint.”
Excuse #14: Nancy Pelosi opposes impeachment.
Excuse #15: Hillary Clinton opposes impeachment.
Swanson: “We cannot afford the luxury of pessimism. While there are things Congress refuses to even consider, like ending the occupation or impeaching Cheney or Bush, there are also things that we as citizens have a responsibility to consider but rarely do. We can shut down our Congress members' offices with endless repeated sit-ins. We can make it impossible for them to work. That changes the whole calculation. We can shut down the city of Washington. The next big march is on the 29th, following a camp in front of the Capitol from the 22nd to the 29th. If we bring a million people and on the 29th refuse to leave, if we block the streets and fill the jails, all bets and probably all wars are off.”
ALL IN ALL
In this writing, I have both summarized and extrapolated on parts of Swanson’s speech, called “Is Peace or Impeachment Possible?”, originally published as an article in this week’s Op-Ed.
That article is a great tool for Americans who are crying out for justice and a just government restoration in the USA.
Swanson ends his speech in an optimistic tone that encourages us all to continue contacting our congressmen.
Swanson, for example, writes: “Whether we can manage such feats [Impeaching and Peace] or not, if we keep building and pushing an impeachment movement, not only do we communicate to the world our good intentions, but we are prepared should some new event help trigger a pulse in the corpse of Congress. And let us hope that event is not an attack on Iran.”
On the Op-Ed website, there is a link to US ALONE website , http://www.usalone.net/cgi-bin/oen.cgi?qnum=2650 , sponsored by P.E.N. and Op-Ed, which enables residents in the USA to write directly to their local newspapers and encourage IMPEACHMENT NOW!
I encourage you readers to do so now! (I sent out my letters this afternoon already using that helpful link.)
Finally, Swanson notes:
“We can also organize in and do polling in swing districts to try to show the electoral advantage to be gained from doing the right thing. We can also keep pressuring key Congress members like Congressman Wexler and Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz. We can do this through local media activism, PR, letters to editors, calls to shows, through visits, phone calls, emails, faxes, letters, post cards, posters, billboards, through honk-to-impeach events where you hold posters saying ‘Honk to Impeach’ at the side of the street outside their offices, and through events where we sit in and read the Constitution aloud, refusing to leave.”
“We can also take our demands directly to the people Congress listens to: the media. The fact is that if we had had Fox News and if the other outlets had been in 1974 what they are now, Nixon would never have resigned. Today, the media do not cover the crimes, the evidence, or the public outrage, and do not poll the public's opinions on impeachment. We forced the Downing Street minutes into the news two-and-a-half years ago by flooding the media with phone calls, emails, and protests in their lobbies. That needs to continue.”
I would end by saying, consider running against your own Congressman and Senators, at the very least, if they continue to support injustice and war by their inaction.
NOTES
“The Aggressive Progressives: Poll”, http://www.democrats.com/
Swanson, David, “Is Peace or Impeachment Possible?”, http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_070916_is_peace_or_impeachm.htm
US ALONE: “Write Your Congressmen and Local Paper” , http://www.usalone.net/cgi-bin/oen.cgi?qnum=2650
By Kevin Stoda
I was impressed as I read through David Swanson’s article entitled: “Is Peace or Impeachment Possible?”
First and foremost, Swanson attacks the Big Lies of Madison Avenue and Washington, D.C. in 2007:
Lie #1: The U.S. cannot pull out of Iraq now or very soon.
Swanson explains: “Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can announce tomorrow and could have announced nine months, several hundred troops, and tens of thousands of Iraqis ago, that they will not bring up any more bills to fund the occupation. A Republican proposal to fund the occupation could be blocked by 41, not 67, Senators. The Democrats could also pass bills ending the occupation or funding only the withdrawal and have them vetoed and pass them again and again. This is no secret and there is no dispute that Congress has this power. Senator Feingold held hearings at the start of the year at which experts overwhelmingly agreed that Congress can simply stop providing funding. Bush has plenty of money to bring the troops home, and Congress can provide new money for that purpose.”
I could kick myself—as should many of my fellow Americans—for failing to do this simple math required for measuring the support in the House and Senate for non-funding the war. In short, 80% of Americans want troops home now or soon. If more than 40% of Congressmen and Senators can’t support the WILL OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, they should be impeached, too.
Lie #2: Congress hasn’t got time, opportunity, or reason to impeach (first) Vice-President Dick Cheney and (second) President George W. Bush.
There are nearly two dozen cogent arguments which Swanson successfully makes concerning how and why Congress can and really must impeach the vice-president and then the president.
Some of these arguments are political. Others are based on the constitution. Others are based on doing what is simply right and supporting the dignity of the American people’s—i.e. Allowing Americans to becoming more fully proud of their country than has been the result of any act carried out by congress in Washington over the past many years.
Finally, there are arguments that are both humorous and true.
One of the early arguments in this article/speech comes from a historical perspective as Swanson reminds his audience, “You won’t hear much about it on the news, but a bill had been introduced in July to impeach Gonzales, and it was gaining support during the August recess. In fact a bunch of Congress Members added their names to the list of cosponsors this month even though Gonzales had already announced his resignation. This was not the first time that an effort to impeach helped force out an unjust attorney general. An effort to impeach Richard Nixon forced him out as well. An effort to impeach Harry Truman led to the Supreme Court checking his abuses of power. In fact the threat of impeachment is usually enough to restore a level of justice and democracy in Washington, D.C. A promise not to impeach, on the other hand, tends to encourage abuses of power and is itself an unconstitutional abuse of power.”
This is a basic fact.
The American response to the impeachment of Bill Clinton was the exception to the rule in terms of the public’s response to a congress threatening impeachment in over 200-years of American history. To a great degree, American’s certainly have supported their leaders when they are calling a spade a spade—or calling a criminal a criminal or calling a felon a felon (or a war-crime a war crime).
DON’T SEPARATE IMPEACHMENT FROM WITHDRAWAL!
A key point of Swanson’s article, “Is Peace or Impeachment Possible?”, is that:
Lie #3: Impeachment can be handled separately from ending the U.S.’s participation in the war in Iraq.
Swanson makes it clear that without impeachment (The Big Hammer) and willingness by Congress to stand up to a Republican minority’s attempt to keep this horrible war funded indefinitely, war will not end—moreover, nothing much else will get accomplished in 2007-2008 by congress in many other areas.
Worse still--especially for the Democratic Party--without impeachment and a drastic pullout of American participation in Iraq in 2008, Democrats will not do as well as they need to be doing in November 2008 elections. Moreover, the American movement to redeploy our own Bills of Rights in the Territory of the USA will be stalled.
Swanson states, “The purpose of impeachment is not just to take back control of our government, not just to end an occupation, not just to prevent an attack on Iran. The purpose of impeachment is to inform future presidents that they must obey laws. But this is not something that concerns many Congress members. Their chief concern tends to be whether the next president will belong to their party.”
Swanson, who used to work with Kucinich, adds, “Twenty Congress members have signed onto H Res 333, Dennis Kucinich's bill to impeach Cheney. Many more signed onto the Gonzales bill or signed on during the last Congress to the Conyers bill for a preliminary impeachment investigation. And others have said publicly or privately that they favor impeachment. But these members have not signed onto Kucinich's bill on Cheney and have not introduced their own on Cheney or Bush. I've spoken to a lot of them and their staff and to constituents who've spoken to them. They have about 15 excuses, most of which are very easily rejected, a few of which it is going to be very hard but not impossible for us to get around.”
Swanson currently works with a website which has a good pulse on what American’s wants and needs from Congress. Look at it at: http://www.democrats.com/
The site at Democrats.com shows today the following results. Only 2% of Americans feel that Bush should get $200 billion more dollars to continue to fund the war—without conditions.
Meanwhile 83%, of those participating in the poll, feel that Bush should be required to use existing funds to bring U.S. Troops home within 6 months. An additional 13% said that perhaps Congress should give Bush $50 Billion to bring troops home within six months.
Swanson also emphasizes the fact that “[s]eventy-nine Congress members, including only two Floridians, Corrine Brown and Alcee Hastings, have signed a letter saying they won't vote for more money unless it "redeploys" the troops by January 2009. This effort is led by Progressive Caucus chairs Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey. Woolsey is getting a lot of heat in DC right now because someone published the transcript of a private conference call on which she advocated pushing primary challenges to pro-war Democrats. But Lynn is not only right morally. Hers is a pro-Democratic Party position. Primaries are good for a party as well as a country.”
HOW IMPEACHMENT PROPONENTS SHOULD RESPOND!
Swanson ends his article by indicating how Americans, who are really serious about taking back our nation’s great traditions in human-, constitutional-, and civil rights, needing to be responding to the status-quo in Washington and in the USA media forums.
Swanson lists 15 excuses by adversaries give for not supporting IMPEACHMENT NOW. Supporters of just politics in America should learn to respond as quickly and refreshingly as Swanson does in this article:
Excuse #1: You can't judge articles of impeachment prior to a committee investigation. That gets the process out of order:
A bill calling for impeachment, explains Swanson, “would not have to be wholly devoid of content. It could suggest the area or areas of inquiry.”
Excuse #2: We don't have all the facts we need in order to impeach.
Swanson: “Well, of course that's what an impeachment investigation is for. But in fact we do have the facts. The Judiciary Committee passed an article of impeachment against Nixon for refusing to comply with subpoenas. Bush and Cheney and Rice have indisputably refused to comply with subpoenas.” Swanson adds, “He [Bush] and Cheney are on videotape lying about the reasons for war, and the evidence that they knew they were lying is overwhelming. That is the impeachable offense our founding fathers most worried about. James Madison and George Mason both argued as well at the Constitutional Convention that impeachment would be needed if a president ever pardoned a crime that he himself was involved in.”
Excuse #3: Impeachment would take too long.
Swanson: “Nixon took 3 months. Clinton took 2. They've spent 9 thus far avoiding it, and with very little to show for it. Impeachment for refusal to comply with subpoenas would take one day.”
Excuse #4: Impeachment would distract from other things.
Swanson: “Yeah? Like what? Since when is restoring the Bill of Rights a distraction? A distraction from funding wars and legalizing spying is fine with me. A distraction from passing bills that will be vetoed does not worry me.”
Excuse #5: We need to focus on ending the war.
Swanson: “OK, but if you focus on ending the war for two full years and don't actually end it, I wish you luck getting people to turn out next November. When Congress moved toward impeachment of Nixon, it found the nerve to end a war, and he backed off on his veto threats. Congress passed a menu of progressive legislation in part because of, not despite, the impeachment threat hanging over Nixon. And ultimately of course impeachment is going to be needed to end the current occupation of Iraq.”
Excuse #6: Impeachment would be divisive.
Swanson: “Actually that's not true among Democrats. Eighty percent favor impeachment. But as far as bipartisan harmony on Capitol Hill goes, the dangers of creating divisiveness is sort of like the danger of violence breaking out if we leave Iraq. It's too late already! And it's too late because the Republicans never give a damn for bipartisan harmony.” Swanson also remarks, “John Nichols says: impeachment is not a constitutional crisis. It's the cure for the one we're in. Aspirin is not a headache crisis. Impeachment is not a constitutional crisis.”
Excuse #7: We don't have the votes in the House to impeach.
Swanson: Well, you would if Pelosi whipped on it. And Congress members back bills all the time that are not predicted to pass. If their colleagues fail to join them, that's between their colleagues and their colleagues' constituents. And again, impeachment usually does its work without getting all the way to impeachment. A move to impeach for refusal to comply with subpoenas, for example, might result in compliance with subpoenas. And it is the only thing that might.”
Excuse #8: We don't have the votes in the Senate to convict.
Swanson: “Well, you might if you put the crimes on television and if the house impeached. But you would do good for the nation and Democrats would do good for their party even with a Senate acquittal. Nothing would better identify for the public the Senators who need to be thrown out of office. And impeachment even without conviction would reverse the public perception of Democrats as having no spine. They may hold even in the next election without impeaching anyone or getting us out of Iraq, but if they want to win new seats, and if they want to win the White House with a large enough margin to not have the election stolen, they will reverse their current position and act!”
Excuse #9: I won't sign onto Kucinich's bill because he hasn't asked me to, and he's a liberal, and he's running for president.
Swanson: “We expect you to sign onto a bill based on the merits of it, or to introduce your own.”
Excuse #10: You can't impeach over policy differences because you don't like war. You have to impeach for a crime.
Swanson: “Well, Kucinich's bill charges Cheney with the felony that involves misleading Congress and with the crime of threatening war on Iran. Cheney is on videotape doing so. Conyers' book lists lots of felonies. But in fact, not every crime is an impeachable offense and not every impeachable offense is a crime. When Nixon cheated on his taxes or Clinton cheated on his wife and lied about it under oath, no impeachable offenses were committed. When Nixon lied to the public or when Bush ignored warnings prior to 9/11, no crimes were committed, but the offenses were impeachable.”
Excuse #11: If I backed impeachment, the media would be mean to me.
Swanson: “Yes, Congressman; Yes, Congresswoman. And if you don't people will die. Which is worse? A majority backs impeachment now for Cheney and a majority or close to it for Bush. Those numbers will go up, not down, if you act, regardless of what the media says. You know those 18 percent of Americans who approve of the job you're doing? Even they don't like the media. No campaign email raises more money than one that begins, ‘Fox News just attacked me.’”
Excuse #12: Impeachment would make Bush and Cheney sympathetic and rally people around them.
Swanson: “I think Congress should start with Cheney and watch as Republicans are forced to abandon him. The Republicans would have done this to the Democrats years ago. The idea that impeachment would help Bush and Cheney originated in Republican National Committee talking points published in May 2006. Pelosi immediately adopted the idea as her own. It flies in the face of the historical record. When the Republicans have moved impeachment, as against Truman for example, they've benefited at the polls. When the Democrats tried to impeach Nixon, who was popular compared to Cheney or Bush, they won huge victories. When they promised not to impeach Reagan, they lost in the next elections. The exceptional case is the Clinton impeachment which was uniquely unpopular. Nonetheless, the Republicans hung onto both houses of Congress and the White House.”
Excuse #13: Impeachment would remind people of Bill Clinton.
Swanson: “[C]ompared to Bush and Cheney he looks like a saint.”
Excuse #14: Nancy Pelosi opposes impeachment.
Excuse #15: Hillary Clinton opposes impeachment.
Swanson: “We cannot afford the luxury of pessimism. While there are things Congress refuses to even consider, like ending the occupation or impeaching Cheney or Bush, there are also things that we as citizens have a responsibility to consider but rarely do. We can shut down our Congress members' offices with endless repeated sit-ins. We can make it impossible for them to work. That changes the whole calculation. We can shut down the city of Washington. The next big march is on the 29th, following a camp in front of the Capitol from the 22nd to the 29th. If we bring a million people and on the 29th refuse to leave, if we block the streets and fill the jails, all bets and probably all wars are off.”
ALL IN ALL
In this writing, I have both summarized and extrapolated on parts of Swanson’s speech, called “Is Peace or Impeachment Possible?”, originally published as an article in this week’s Op-Ed.
That article is a great tool for Americans who are crying out for justice and a just government restoration in the USA.
Swanson ends his speech in an optimistic tone that encourages us all to continue contacting our congressmen.
Swanson, for example, writes: “Whether we can manage such feats [Impeaching and Peace] or not, if we keep building and pushing an impeachment movement, not only do we communicate to the world our good intentions, but we are prepared should some new event help trigger a pulse in the corpse of Congress. And let us hope that event is not an attack on Iran.”
On the Op-Ed website, there is a link to US ALONE website , http://www.usalone.net/cgi-bin/oen.cgi?qnum=2650 , sponsored by P.E.N. and Op-Ed, which enables residents in the USA to write directly to their local newspapers and encourage IMPEACHMENT NOW!
I encourage you readers to do so now! (I sent out my letters this afternoon already using that helpful link.)
Finally, Swanson notes:
“We can also organize in and do polling in swing districts to try to show the electoral advantage to be gained from doing the right thing. We can also keep pressuring key Congress members like Congressman Wexler and Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz. We can do this through local media activism, PR, letters to editors, calls to shows, through visits, phone calls, emails, faxes, letters, post cards, posters, billboards, through honk-to-impeach events where you hold posters saying ‘Honk to Impeach’ at the side of the street outside their offices, and through events where we sit in and read the Constitution aloud, refusing to leave.”
“We can also take our demands directly to the people Congress listens to: the media. The fact is that if we had had Fox News and if the other outlets had been in 1974 what they are now, Nixon would never have resigned. Today, the media do not cover the crimes, the evidence, or the public outrage, and do not poll the public's opinions on impeachment. We forced the Downing Street minutes into the news two-and-a-half years ago by flooding the media with phone calls, emails, and protests in their lobbies. That needs to continue.”
I would end by saying, consider running against your own Congressman and Senators, at the very least, if they continue to support injustice and war by their inaction.
NOTES
“The Aggressive Progressives: Poll”, http://www.democrats.com/
Swanson, David, “Is Peace or Impeachment Possible?”, http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_070916_is_peace_or_impeachm.htm
US ALONE: “Write Your Congressmen and Local Paper” , http://www.usalone.net/cgi-bin/oen.cgi?qnum=2650
Labels: Impeach Cheney bUSH noW IN 2007 aMERICANS NEED TO end War now how to do it why
posted by Kevin Anthony Stoda at 5:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home