Diatribune

In response to 'It's Up to Us' by Cindy Sheehan

Dear Ms. Sheehan

From the time I learned about your efforts to reign in George Bush's murderous and lying ways, I have not wavered in support of what you are trying to do. I rave about your focus on impeaching this scum. I have seen the shitstorms you have weathered and been pretty damn offended by the left-wing  uproar against you.

You are not much older than me but you are more experienced with activism. You are making things happen and for these reasons I do defer to you as "generally knowing what you are doing" more than I might know.

That said, I am not writing to fawn over you either. I don't think you are perfect or a genius or some sort of Guru. You are human. You make mistakes. But, nonetheless, I do have great respect for you as an activist who has made a serious impact and that is the spirit in which this is written. I think you are "for real" as the kids say.

I wanted to talk to you about your plans to influence impeachment.

I am glad to see you value John Conyers, but I must really be missing something. It's why I am writing to you today.

This was my third meeting with Congressman Conyers about impeachment. I hold a special place in my heart for him and I revere him for his decades long service to this nation but for the life of me, I cannot understand why he will not go forward with impeachment now.

A year ago he introduced HR635 to impeach George Bush while he was Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee and not even chairman. He wrote the book on impeachment called: The Constitution in Crisis and he readily admits that BushCo have committed impeachable offenses.

I have taken Mr. Conyers at his words as I believe he is one of the very few "politicians" who has an uncorrupted word. I could be wrong, but if I am, I'll feel very ill.

David Lindorff a writer I also defer to as "knowing which end is up" seems to think there are 2 John Conyers

As impeachment activist David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet.org has said, there "seems to be two John Conyers," one who, in 2005 and early 2006, while Republicans controlled the House, was systematically making the case for impeaching the president and vice president (he had even submitted a bill, with 39 co-sponsors, which called for creation of a select committee to investigate possible impeachable crimes by the administration), and one who, submitting to the wishes of the new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was keeping impeachment "off the table."

Occasionally the former Conyers breaks out, saying things such as that the president needs to be "taken out" or, as he put it at an anti-war rally last spring, that "we can fire him!" But then the other Conyers comes to the fore, and stands in the way of impeachment action.

This time, however, it was worse than just doing nothing. The arrest of impeachment activists and their forcible eviction from his office was a betrayal of people who were doing the very kind of thing that had allowed Conyers to make his way into Congress in the first place: sitting in to insist on action on their demands for justice. It was, after all, sit-ins that helped lead to the Voting Rights Act which allowed African American candidates like Conyers to finally win seats in the US Congress.

It is my understanding that Mr. Conyers, basically, IS all for impeachment but he has rules to follow to make the thing work correctly. I disagree with the assessment that Conyer's actions were "a betrayal". But then, I wasn't there: I have to rely on the various reports I have read.

My best read is that he needs no more than 3 more representatives to move forward, but even that article is penned by someone who seems to see 2 John Conyers.

Conyers said that all he needs is three more Congress Members backing impeachment, and he'll move on it, even without Pelosi. I asked whether that meant specifically moving from 14 cosponsors of H Res 333 to 17, or adding 3 to the larger number of Congress Members who have spoken favorably of impeachment but not all signed onto bills. Bree said she didn't know and that Conyers had declined to take any questions.

Either way, this target of three more members seems perfectly doable. It's safe to assume, I think, that we're talking about impeaching Cheney first. But, even if Conyers is talking about Bush, the target is perfectly achievable.

He was most gracious AND quite smart in meeting with you and the others yesterday. I think it was the right thing to do. You likely did distract him from other things he might need to have been doing, but, you know, if it wan;'t one thing it would have been another. He knows this. Another day in the office, basically.

Here's my big complaint:

I think your focus on him is akin to hijacking an airplane to its scheduled destination.

There: I criticized you.

So, we are asked to believe that he just needs 3 more representatives - if I were you, and I mean no disrespect, I'd take your Band of Merry Impeachers and visit 5 or 6 representatives who CAN sign on with Conyers.  Help him, help yourselves and help us.

With regards to "running against Nancy Pelosi" I am unsure how practical that is. The nuts and bolts of this are totally over my head. But, if you feel genuinely driven and it's not just another way to crowbar more impetus for impeachment (all's fair: It's a war, you know) then fine. If you are genuinely serious, please consider running as a New Democrat.

It is time to build a progressive majority.

To do that we must begin work to build infrastructure, organizations, and ideas that will recast this party as a party not just of Democrats, but of social democrats. We must be willing to pick fights with Dems when they fail us, and above all else, we must be willing to primary bad Dems.

It is not always clear who is a good Dem and who is a bad Dem. Someone like Rick Boucher, who wants global warming to happen, is also a strong ally on net neutrality. The Congressional majority is full of such examples, ranging from the good folks who occasionally fuck up to the Bush Democrats (aka the Blue Dogs) who are our outright enemies. How we deal with them must be the subject of an open and honest debate amongst our movement. But we must never accept that there is nothing we can do about them.

American history is full of moments where the underlying political landscape underwent rapid, profound, and unexpected change. In 1928 Republicans dominated American politics. Four years later the New Deal majority was here to stay. In 1964 Republicanism seemed on the verge of extinction. Four years later Nixon had risen from the dead and the New Deal majority was smashed.

We must finally reject the idea that we cannot change American attitudes. Too often, so-called "realists" come along to tell us that this or that bad Dem is the best we can get from a district, that it's a "red district" so we have to put up with whatever we can get. This is not at all realistic politics. True realism understands that politics is an everchanging business, and that voters' minds are never cast in stone - otherwise Bush would still be at 90% approval ratings. We have not only witnessed, but we have played a significant role in one of the most stunning turnabouts in American public opinion - the mass rejection of George W. Bush. It came a wee bit late for the 2004 vote, but it DID happen.

I think you'd be a natural for this.

You can still run against Ms. Pelosi, though I am unaware of how this might help. It's not like she is totally useless or anything - I think she has done some good things so far in terms of showing Bush there is new power, but I have to agree, I don't know what her idea is about "keeping impeachment off the table".

Apparently, Ms. Pelosi does not have a "Constitutional Mandate to impeach

Simply put, the House has the power...but it is not  required  to use it.

And certainly, Speaker Pelosi is not the one who has the authority one way or another.

If we are going to get serious about impeachment, we need to understand it, we need to rationalize it, and we need fight with reason.

And saying Speaker Pelosi is somehow to blame for a public statement about impeachment being "off the table" and she's not "doing her constitutionally mandated" job doesn't help matter.  It hurts.

So as we go forward, let's drop that talking point.  And let's get to the real talking point:

   House of Representatives, it's time to investigate.

   And if necessary, indict.

   In the form of articles of impeachment.

Some people seem to think she has some brilliant plan to help Team Bush get enough rope to hang themselves if they believe they are totally untouchable now. She has sent them the message about impeachment being off the table apparently so they will feel they can get away with anything to the point they literally incriminate themselves.

Madam Speaker laid a trap.

She lulled the arrogant pricks into hubristic complacency.

They figured they could do whatever they wanted. By, quote, "removing impeachment from the table" - heh, heh - she tricked 'em.

*****

And, given that Nancy Pelosi had said that impeachment was off the table, why, the Rethugs had nothing to worry about. They got cocky. Well, cockier.

"Dose Demicrats want I should testify? Huh. Like hell I'm'unna testify. Subpoena dis, Conyuhs!"

So when John Conyers was left staring at an empty chair with Harriet Miers' nameplate over it, there was no abstruse legal explanation needed - everybody got it: Somebody was defying a subpoena.

In an investigation into the White House.  

That is as blatant and graphic a display of obstruction of justice as I can think of.

And thus it was that the Rethugs were lured into committing an absolutely indefensible crime against the Constitution, right out in front of God and everybody, on national television, defiantly and unapologetically. It was, as my good friend Major Danby likes to call it, a procedural justification for impeachment.

I honestly don't know what to make of all this. It seems like something of a "Hail Mary Pass" to me, but I do not know everything.

I have quoted only folks I feel are decent and credible and it's plain there is a lack of consensus as to whether impeachment will bear fruit or be a large waste of time.

I think pressing the House and not just this person or that person about impeachment cannot hurt as this IS the first step in getting the necessary investigations underway.  

Thus, in my mind, the jury is still out on the overall usefulness of Ms. Pelosi. I would like to suggest that you give her a little more slack, as I do to see if she's got something a bit more sneaky up her sleeve. Yes....I do honestly hope this is the case.

That said, I am also unsure of your qualifications to run against her or any professional politician. In this case "qualifications" more or less means the several million dollars one needs to more or less throw away running for an office. And Ms. Pelosi has been at the game for a long, long time: she's clearly very good at it. With all due respect, you are not a professional politician: perhaps you will do very well, but it does make me cringe a bit, I'll be honest.

I'd ask you to really think hard about this as you already have some influence in this world. I think you can do a lot of damage to Team Bush continuing to do as you are.

That's my 2 cents.

Thanks for what you do. I am always looking for your next action.

Peace, Love, and Soul

Doc.

(PS - In place of so much focus on Ms. Pelosi, hammer on the Mainstream Media's complicity with it all. I think you can tear them a new one!)

__________________________

»

• xxdr_zombiexx's blog
• Login or register to post comments