Stooge number two is, perhaps not so surprisingly, Speaker of
the House Nancy Pelosi. Hoyer couldn't grow a spine if he wanted to,
because he and almost every other Democrat in the House of
Representatives have made themselves vassals in Pelosi's kingdom.
Pelosi was on the Ed Shultz Show on Tuesday, and Ed tried to get a
straight answer out of her as to why she would not impeach Bush and
Cheney, and what if anything could happen that would lead her to
impeach. Pelosi suggested that it was all up to the Republican members
of Congress, that she would only impeach if it were a bipartisan
effort.
But surely Pelosi knows what a "leader" is supposed to do. The
impeachment of Richard Nixon was bipartisan only after the Democrats
led the way. Bruce Fein and others claim that quite a few Republicans
(Fein says 25) are waiting only for Pelosi's leadership, and are
prepared to back impeachment.
The stooge from San Francisco also said she didn't know of any
impeachable offenses that could be proved and moved forward in
Congress. Of course violating the Fourth Amendment and FISA is
impeachable, and it's proved by Bush's confession. Rewriting laws with
signing statements is impeachable, and it's proved by the statements
posted on the White House website and by a GAO study finding that in
many cases Bush has proceeded to violate the laws he claims the right
to violate. Refusing to comply with subpoenas is impeachable, and there
is no dispute that Bush and Cheney have refused to comply.
The evidence
collected here
proves that Bush and Cheney intentionally misled the nation into an
illegal war of aggression. Numerous victims prove the practice of
torture. Here are 10 provable reasons to impeach Bush and Cheney that
you can
send to Congress right now.
On Iraq, Pelosi told Ed Schultz she needs 60 votes in the Senate to do
anything (and presumably post-veto she would claim she needed 67), but
the public is widely aware that this is simply not true, that Pelosi
could refuse to bring up for a vote any more bills to fund the
occupation. There are now 88 Congress Members
committed to funding only withdrawal. A
new poll
finds that 70 percent of Americans favor funding only "redeployment" or
nothing, while 22 percent favor funding the occupation, and
another recent poll
found that 73 percent want Congress to use the power of the purse to
get all troops home within a year, while 13 percent want to keep
funding the occupation. CAN YOU HEAR US NOW?
Stooge number
three is none other than liberal progressive peace leader and co-author
of a book on how to leave Iraq, 1972 Democratic presidential nominee
George McGovern. He has just endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, a
candidate who intends to occupy Iraq through 2017. In a recent debate,
she refused to commit to withdrawing from Iraq by 2013, and Ted
Koppel's report on NPR that her military advisor says she intends to
stay through 2017 is something she has never disputed. McGovern's
co-author William Polk recently testified before Congress and urged
Congress Members to withdraw from Iraq quickly. But McGovern now says
that the best we can hope for is a withdrawal in 2009, and Clinton is
the woman to do it.
It is truly sad to see McGovern join the likes of John Conyers in
throwing away a stellar reputation late in his career. (Were Conyers to
begin impeachment proceedings, the flood of public support would
overwhelm any opposition from Pelosi, yet Conyers does nothing.)
Stooges need a supporting cast. Here they are. Here are the members of
the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Out of Iraq Caucus who have
not signed onto the
Peace Pledge Letter.
Senator Bernie Sanders, Rep. Mazie Hirono, Rep. Xavier Becerra, Rep.
Madeline Bordallo, Rep. Robert Brady, Rep. Michael Capuano, Rep. Rosa
DeLauro, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick, Rep. Tom
Lantos, Rep. George Miller, Rep. Jose Serrano, Rep. Louise Slaughter,
Rep. Tom Udall, Rep. William Jefferson, Rep. John Larson, Rep. Michael
McNulty, Rep. Nick Rahall, and Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard.
Becerra's communications director sees leadership the way Hoyer,
Pelosi, and McGovern see leadership. He told me that Becerra "is an
ardent supporter of ending the war," but that as an assistant to the
Speaker he avoids signing letters that put him on "an absolute policy
track" which is something "you can't have when sitting on leadership."
Pat him on the head, Nancy.
Congressman Capuano shares the view of tables that Clinton, Obama, and
Edwards have when discussing nuking Iran, but not the view of tables
Pelosi has when discussing impeachment. He tells me: "Although I
certainly have no plans to vote in favor of funding for this war,
I do not believe that any options for progress on that objective should be taken off the table.
If the only realistic option for ending the war was a bill that
included funding and firm dates for withdrawal, I might support that."
Of course, so might the 88 Congress Members who have found the nerve to
sign the letter, which Capuano may not have read very carefully.
Congressman Serrano makes failure to take a stand a matter of
principle, and tells me "It is my personal policy not to sign pledges
regarding future legislative actions and for that reason, and that
reason alone, I have not signed the CPC pledge. My record illustrating
my long-standing opposition to extending the war is pledge enough. My
mind will not change on the immorality and foolishness of this war — a
war that was sold based on lies and misrepresentation. It must end."
Serrano's record? This past spring he voted to fund more months of occupation.
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
