Sunday, December 30, 2007
Wexler's Impeach Cheney Effort Gaining Momentum
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) has joined with two other members of the House Judiciary Committee -- Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wi) -- to urge the start of hearings on the Cheney impeachment resolution that was referred to the committee by the U.S. House on November 7th. Learn more at WexlerWantsHearings.com, where you can read an op-ed by the three representatives and sign a petition in support of impeachment hearings that will be submitted to Congress when they return in January. So far, more than 166,000 people have signed it.
I hope that we can get traction on this action. I believe that there is no accountability if there is no investigation.
There are people who argue that impeachment hearings would hamstring Congress. I don't believe that they could get anything less done than they are not doing now, so I don't see a down side to the hearings.
I also believe that if we ignore what has been done in the Bush administration we will see similar disregard for our Constitution in the future. We can not afford to go through this again. We cannot allow the Bush administration to not be fully investigated and punished!
Please sign the petition and get every friend that you have to sign the petition. If you don't act you are guilty!
Posted by: Terry Riley | Dec 30, 2007 2:47:51 PM
Its my belief that what we see happening today is a direct result of not being through enough after Watergate. Had Nixon spent some time in prison it could have sent a powerful message to likes of Cheney that the American people would demand accountability and criminality in the White House will not be tolerated. I hope Wexler can advance this impeachment, if for nothing else to put fear of We the People back into Government and hopefully stop any future Admin form crossing the line..
Posted by: VP | Dec 30, 2007 5:40:04 PM
How can we expect the mainstream Democrats to move forward on impeachment when not a single one of the Democratic presidential candidates has even suggested that Musharraf might have had a hand in Benazir Bhutto's assassination? Their willingness to remain mute on what to many of us laymen is obvious is a predictor of US policy, both foreign and domestic...regardless of who wins the presidency in 2008. I'm not saying that we shouldn't continue to press for impeachment - we absolutely should - but the candidates are representative of the party, and the party continues to warmonger, and buries its head in the sand when faced with any measure of truth. Ball of Confusion, yes. That's what the world is today...
Posted by: Jason Call | Dec 31, 2007 12:50:37 AM
I beg to differ that the Party has anything to do with what the candidates or members of Congress are doing. Elected officials and candidates don't get their power from the Party- they get it from their campaign donors. In fact the Party and its members and many of its officers fight for what is right with resolutions and platforms only to be ignored by candidates and those in office. Who in the Party is warmongering and burying its head in the sand? The candidates and Democrats in office don't even attend Party functions and meetings unless they are looking for votes or volunteers.
I also don't think presidential candidates should be accusing Musharraf of anything right now. Can't be proved and would be an empty statement when so much is going on behind the scenes and internationally. They have expressed their serious mistrust of him.
Posted by: Old Dem | Dec 31, 2007 10:16:56 AM
What I'm saying about our politicians in general is that not one of them has suggested that there might warrant some probing beyond the 'official' story that al-Qaida was behind the assassination. Read this Robert Fisk article: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article3291600.ece
Why does the Party keep reelecting candidates who don't listen to them? Udall is a case in point. I'd be willing to bet that 85-90% of the readers of this blog are 'strong' Udall supporters. But Udall has already said he's not interested in any impeachment investigation. Yet he will be nominated to that Senate seat over a Democratic 'challenger' who has a pro-impeachment position because he can win the seat. So the Party wants a winner, even if that winner doesn't represent the Party's views. Sounds to me like that's not really a 'win'. Oh, I know that we can say 'Well, look at the other good things they have done, votes they have made.' But when it comes down to the real decisions, the ones that make a real difference (single-payer healthcare, ending the war, and so on) the Party is stuck with a raspberry, but a raspberry of their own choosing.
I believe that the candidates absolutely do represent the party, because in the end, it is the party who put them in their positions. They represent us until we remove them. And in all likelihood, if there is a Democrat in the presidency come 2009, that Democrat will be a warmonger (that is my accusation to all Democrats who vote to continue war funding) who will keep US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan throughout the four years of their term. They might not represent me, or you, or any number of individuals in our personal positions...but they do represent the Party.
I'm not accusing any individuals of anything...but collectively we as a Party will be responsible for the inevitable non-impeachment of Bush and Cheney, because the current officeholders know they'll get re-elected regardless...re-elected by us. Udall is a perfect example...he doesn't have to stick his neck out on impeachment. We love him, don't we? (That's the collective burying of heads on our part.)
Posted by: Jason Call | Jan 1, 2008 5:55:23 AM
Posted by: Jason Call | Jan 1, 2008 1:38:37 PM