On Congressional Courage and Cowardice

[bigtree]

March 5, 2007

There's lots of name-calling going on here toward our congressional leaders that's just ridiculous. Who told these stone-throwers it would be quick and easy to stop Bush in Iraq after the election? The Senate was a surprise victory. The margin is razor thin. With such a weak hand, it's not the smartest strategy to bull forward.

Our Congress is built for legislative comity, but it's also built for arguing. That's what Democratic detractors of the new majority seem to want though; an unending argument.

I never expected Congress to be able to yoke Bush up right away. These things take time, because, our political institutions are designed for compromise more than they are geared for the type of dictating action that most of the critics of the new leadership expect. That is why our leaders in both houses have taken careful steps to try and get the broadest support for the initiatives they've advanced for votes.

There is no courage at all in trying to ram through some strident, decidedly partisan, legislative rebuke which has no chance at all in becoming law, much less achieve an up or down vote, in the face of the balance of power in both bodies.

I know that the mantra from the bulk of the critics of the leadership is that *they are afraid of the politics of confronting Bush through the funding requests which are designated for Iraq. Many of those funds are not reaching the troops right now, and many of the funds which go into maintaining the perpetual deployments and the care and aid for the returning soldiers and veterans are clearly stretched to the breaking point.

The funding has to be addressed, but under the rules, spending bills have to originate in the House. If they are raised in the Senate, they are subject to a certain 'point of order' by the republican obstruction which requires 60 votes to overcome.

The House, apparently, has the opportunity to simply reject Bush's budget request out of hand and kill it right there. The problem with that approach is that it directs Bush to do NOTHING. Who expects that Bush is suddenly going to abandon his false mandate he imagines from the original IWR and slink back home? Who thinks he, or the generals who've encouraged him that something can be 'won' or gained by the escalation, give a damn about the safety, security, and well-being of the soldiers who are being killed at the rate of 2-3 a day?

What Bush would do in the face of the 'courageous' act of rejecting the supplemental appropriation is continue on with his occupation, blaming his own negligence on the visible rejection of money. I've heard the claims that the cut won't affect the troops. "There's money enough there already to pull them out" is the dominant argument. Dissent from that and you're spouting 'republican talking-points', goes the diatribe from the more venomous critics. But what control do the critics or Congress have over the dispensation of the money?

How do they guarantee that our soldiers won't be hung out to dry? If there's money there to support them in a withdrawal, there's money enough for Bush to limp them along with him in his lame-duck lunge for redemptive glory behind the continued sacrifices of our soldiers.

Who is vouching for the meme that the cuts won't hurt the troops? Rep. Kucinich? Sen. Feingold? Both of them have components of their withdrawal plans which call for action outside of the funding. Where are the votes that would propel these initiatives into law? Where is their coalition?

Who told folks that we had a majority which had the ability to just ram things through? Who told people that our majority had the ability to manipulate the levers of our democracy with impunity? Even if such an undemocratic domination of the minority was deserved and overdue, it simply is not possible to effect with the balance of power which exists.

But, we call these folks cowards for *reaching for consensus; no matter that most of these direct confrontations are bound to achieve little more than a butting of heads.

I know there are a wide range of proposals for withdrawal which will attempt to make their way up the legislative ladder. They will either be presented with the consensus effort upcoming after the 9-11 bill debate, or they will be attached to numerous pieces of legislation as amendments. They will get their chance to gain support. But just presenting these more strident amendments for a vote doesn't make the act one of 'courage', any more than an attempt to move something forward legislatively in a bipartisan way makes those folks cowards, especially since the results face the threat of a likely presidential veto in the end.

That said, I do think that *at some point Bush has to be presented with SOMETHING which directs him in Iraq. Just turning their backs on one funding request doesn't direct him to do anything. He needs to be presented with a repealed or amended IWR which takes away his open-ended, false authority he says sanctions whatever he's doing. Along with that,I would seek another binding resolution which sets a timetable for withdrawal.

The efforts to direct Bush through the funding make sense as well, although there's no need at all for the provision in the Levin proposal which leaves troops to battle the 'Iraqi al-Qaeda'. That's a crock which will set us up for more of the same. I think that's what Sen. Feingold was talking about when he complained about the efforts last weekend.

But, most of all, the Congress needs to find a way to work together to begin to bring the bulk of our troops home this year. There are republican and Democratic sons and daughters, moms and dads in Iraq, and we can only hope that they don't wait until after the next election to do what they, themselves, know is the right thing to do, and cut their president off at the knees politically until he bends on Iraq.

Impeachment is not a far gone conclusion. I think it will come. For the Congress, it's early. They move like snails. That's the way the system was designed; to accommodate the wide divergence of views from the many diverse quarters around the nation. It is a deliberative institution which provides many levers of resistance for the minority. It is designed for compromise and our new leadership reflects that.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

edit*

[yellerpup]

1. K&R

You are the first person to assuage my impatience (somewhat) with reason. Patience is usually my long suit, but these guys make me totally nuts. :kick:

[Tellurian]

2. Yep, I was stunned just as I finished reading your thoughtful post...

it was <LOCKED>

Thanks for posting fresh new ideas and the current understanding of this slo-mo process.

I figured we had two choices..either Impeach or End the War..

Impeachment is an impossibility if we attend to the current revisionist version of the Constitution.
OR Work to rescind the authority given by Congress to Bush for War Powers.

I like the suggestions given in the OP, btw-

[yellerpup]

3. Why was it locked?

Maybe I should go read the rules again...

[Tellurian]

4. Because of the Title..

The poster forgot his header title might be construed as a smear against Democrats.

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3146390

scroll down to #45

[yellerpup]

7. Thanks for clearing that up.

But the title does say Courage, too. I didn't find anything disrespectful in the post. On to #45.

[peacetheonlyway]

5. CONGRESS Represents will of People

period end of story.

The Will of the people demand impeachment NOW. not later.

if Congress moves like snails history, our economy and american citizens will suffer much more than a measley 3K dead soldiers.

if Iran begins, the troop deaths will triple or quadruple and there will likely be american soil fallout.

if you folks are willing to let your Congressman and Women ignore the will of the people, than this outcome is your legacy to your children, not Bush's...

[bigtree]

6. I don't see them ignoring the will of the people at all

There is a myriad of ideas on how to restrain and rebuke Bush in both houses. The key is to find an effective vehicle to enact the ideas into law or action.

[ProudDad]

47. Actually Congress has rarely reflected the will of the People

They normally reflect the will of the people who have the bucks to buy them. It's the best "democracy" money can buy. They normally reflect the will of corporations against the best interests of the People.

Sometimes, rarely, like in the case of Nixon, they MUST hear and obey the will of the people. Another very short period was when FDR got into office during the melt-down of capitalism that was the republican depression...the people pushed his administration kicking and screaming into adopting a few of the real reforms that the left-wing, progressives and labor activists of the period had proposed for DECADES.

My greatest fear is that since most of the MSM is firmly in the hands of the right-wing we won't get the kind of publicity for bush's crimes that we got in '73 for Nixon's crimes.

[ProSense]

8. Bush is ignoring Congress...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3120071&mesg_id=3120071">Is Congress ignoring Americans on Iraq?

[bigtree]

9. I like your drift

[Ninja Jordan]

13. me 2

[SaveElmer]

10. Nice job...

No doubt you will be hounded by folks with less of a grasp on the realities of congressional procedure in the face of close majorities...

A definite K&R from me on this one!!!

[babylonsister]

11. Thanks for the words of wisdom, bigtree. Big nom! nt

[pat_k]

12. Blaming the "design" is just more rationalization for inaction.

So, the message is

"Go back to bed America."

"Leave Members of Congress and their staffers alone. They are immobilized by the "design" of Congress."

"They may get around to Impeachment -- the ONLY weapon capable of stopping Bush and Cheney's war on the Constitution -- but they need to prove their impotence by passing a bunch of resolutions and laws for Bush to veto, violate, or nullify with a signing statement first."

Tell that to the people who have been abducted and transported to an overseas CIA-run prison and who are being tortured and held in secret for however long their captors choose to hold them.

Tell that to people in Guantanamo who are still be subjected to treatment that violates the Geneva conventions.

Tell that to the Members of our Armed Services who are now targets for capture and torture by any other party to armed conflict because, as a War Criminal nation, we have no standing on which to object.

Tell that to Americans who are horrified that Bush and Cheney have turned America into a War Criminal Nation that Spies on its own citizens.

Tell that to the Marines and Soldiers who are being maimed and killed while Members of the Congress refuse to move boldly to impeach, the only action that makes any sense in the current crisis, and have instead opted to carry on, politics as usual.

Tell that to the Americans who watched the Democratic majority in 1987 refuse to impeach Reagan and Bush I, get steamrolled, and then lose the White House. Americans who can't believe that history is repeating itself; who are mystified that Members who were there in 1987 failed to learn that Truth Matters and that it is Never good politics to be complicit in crimes against our Constitution.

Tell that to rank and file Democrats who are horrified that their leaders have taken impeachment "off the table" and are thus giving Bush and Cheney cover for their intolerable crimes against our constitutional democracy. (i.e., Bush and Cheney can't be subverting the Constitution. If the were, the opposition leadership would certainty be compelled to impeach. Not only aren't they impeaching, they've taken it off the table.)

Systems are driven by people. The "design" of Congress hasn't banned the word impeachment from all public debate. People did that. People we elected to as champions of the People's Government and the Constitution. People we are ashamed of because, instead of acting as our champions, they turned into Anti-Champions. Instead of giving voice to our outrage, they are doing everything in their power to suppress it.

Passing resolutions and legislation for the White House to veto, violate, or nullify with a signing statement is nothing but impotent gesture that confirms the "weak Dem" image. The Constitution, U.S. Code, International law, the overwhelming will of the American people, the pressures of "politics as usual" mean nothing to Bush and Cheney. The only thing Bush and Cheney understand is force. You don't take a pea shooter to a gun fight. Impeachment is the only loaded gun in the congressional arsenal.

Everything necessary to make at least five separate, compelling cases for impeachment is on the public record.^Note

Staffers are more than capable of drafting a set of articles and pulling together everything necessary to make any one of the possible cases in an Impeachment Hearing. Bush and Cheney are attacking the Constitution on so many fronts that the House could vote out a new set of articles weekly. With each new set, they would be forcing Senators to choose: stick their own necks out to save the necks of War Criminals who have outraged the nation, or throw Bush and Cheney overboard via removal (and put Nancy Pelosi in the WH) or resignation (and put a Bush nominee that can pass both Houses in the WH).

The label "coward" has been earned. Pelosi herself, and other so-called "leaders" in the Democratic Party tell us that they refuse to impeach because it will rile "the right" or because there will be too much opposition in the Senate. That is, they refuse to even contemplate impeachment, not because they don't think Bush and Cheney are waging war on the Constitution; they refuse because they fear opposition. That's the definition of cowardice ("lack of courage to face danger, difficulty, opposition" -- Random House).

But any Member of Congress, any strategist, or any staffer (the folks who really run things) can redeem themselves today by simply opening their mouths and speaking the truth about the destruction Bush and Cheney are doing to our Constitution, and calling for impeachment hearings to commence immediately.

============================================
Note: For example:

• ordering detainees in Guantanamo to be treated in ways they knew to be War Crimes. (Confirmed by the SCOTUS Hamdan ruling. "We thought we were above the law" cannot erase the crimes committed.);
• abducting, secretly holding, and torturing people in CIA-run prisons overseas (confirmed by the EU TDIP investigation);
• abusing signing statements to declare their intent to violate our laws (just need a single example, such as the nullification of McCain's torture amendment, which passed the Senate with more than 90 votes);
• terrorizing the nation with "mushroom clouds over our cities in 45 minutes" (the most colossal bomb threat in our history); or
• violating FISA to spy on Americans (public statements from both Bush and Cheney confessing to this one).

If Members of the House can't bring themselves to confront the grim reality that America has become a War Criminal nation that spies on it's own citizens, they could simply impeach Bush and Cheney because they are incapable of defending the nation. Their consistent lies (or as their defenders term them, "mistakes") have made any "evidence" that comes from any agency run by their appointees suspect. Their entire administration is therefore incapable of effectively motivating national or international response to a threat.

[bigtree]

15. Impeachment will come when the Congress gets the goods on these officials

Just relying on the accusations we all are familiar with won't count for squat until the committees do their work. That will take time. Remember impeachment is a political process which still depends on more than a simple majority to pull it off. It makes no sense at all for the leadership to highlight impeachment now with no clear path and no clear measure of support for that course. Also the Congress really hasn't told Bush to do anything about Iraq in any binding legislative way. I don't know how they are expected to start an impeachment hearing flashing around news articles. There have to be hearings and whatever they come up with should be definitive, not the crap that the republicans used to drag Clinton through the muck. I think impeachment will come, no matter what Pelosi said. Her statement was meant to keep the media from dwelling on that as if she was refusing to seek consensus. As Congress moves through these resolutions and proposals it will become clear where the obstruction lies and our case will be that much stronger. Dwelling on the political disclaimer she made at the start of the Congress isn't an accurate representation of how the institution intends to hold Bush accountable. Hearings first, accountability afterward.

You have made an elaborate presentation which completely ignores the fact that our party is in no position to be dictators of these important actions. Just refusing to accept the political realities of the present balance of power won't make them go away.

[pat_k]

16. As I pointed out. the "goods" are gotten. Charges have even been adjudicated.

It is long past time to make the case for impeachment. Nothing in your reply constitutes a valid argument against any of the points I made.

Every time Bush and Cheney invoke unitary authoritarian power they declare their intent to violate the Constitution. They've followed up that declaration by repeatedly, willfully, and publicly violating the Constitution. With each act, they write another article of impeachment against themselves and issue a challenge to Congress "We've just erased more of the Constitution. Stop us if you dare."

Members of Congress know it (somewhere behind their denial reality lurks and occasionally sneaks out in what they say). I think you know it.

Claims that "we don't have the goods" is just another rationalization that is at odds with reality.

Comforting themselves that their open-ended, toothless investigations are productive because they will somehow generate support is self-delusion. The only hearings that ANYONE will pay any attention to are Impeachment Hearings. If their aim is to generate support, an Impeachment Hearing is the way to do it. All the other 45 or 50 or however many investigations they have going to wag fingers and do "oversight" are just noise to the WH, Republicans, the media and the public.

As long as the House stays the "off the table" course and limit themselves to wagging fingers and toothless oversight, the bushcheney steamroller keeps rolling over the Congress, the Constitution, U.S. Code, and International law. Perhaps some of them believe they are "getting tough" by threatening to impeach after Bush drops the bombs on Iraq. Tragically, that "threat" is just permission to drop those bombs (i.e., a declaration that Members of Congress will do nothing capable of actually stopping them until the deed is done.)

The only way to find out whether or not there are more than 33 Senators who are willing to defend the indefensible is to put articles of impeachment before them and force the Senators to choose -- to defend or abandon Bush and Cheney.

Until Congress is pointing a loaded gun at their heads (impeachment, the only thing that can "take them out") Bush and Cheney could care less about what all those committees are up to. Until they are faced with the frightening prospect of having to actually choose, Republican Senators will go on, business as usual.

The charges are "on the table." Put there by elected bodies, good government groups, and countless citizens who have called on them to act. Each and every Member has a choice:

• Impeach/accuse

OR

• Tell us WHY the fascist fantasy of a unitary executive that breaks our law at will is NOT an attack on our Constitution;
• Tell us WHY holding people in secret in CIA prisons overseas is NOT a War Crime;
• Tell us why violating FISA to spy on any American they wish to is NOT a violation of U.S. Code and an abuse of power.

You are absolutely right. Impeachment is a political process. What you do not mention is that the Congressional oath is an individual oath. Each and every Member must make a PERSONAL judgment. If they personally believe Bush and Cheney are attacking the Constitution, their oath to "support and defend" calls on them to sound the alarm and demand impeachment. If they don't think Bush and Cheney are attacking the Constitution, they are obligated to tell us WHY they don't think so.

It is really very simple.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Senator/10"> Rationalizing for Inaction on Impeachment:

. . .charges have already been investigated and even adjudicated. They have admitted violating FISA -- and have tried to "defend" it (mutually exclusively) by claiming inherent authority and congressional approval. GOP Senator Specter himself has already scoffed at the defense.

The (formerly) Supreme Court has already ruled in Hamdan that Geneva applies to Gitmo. Behind the Euphemedia smokescreen of tribunal tinkering lies the reality of the decision: Three Years of War Crimes had already been committed. Similarly, the lies about WMD that terrorized the nation into war are already "old news." There is no fig leaf left.

With today's Libby verdict, the case that Bush, Cheney, Rice, and their minions terrorized the nation with perhaps the most collasal bomb threat in our history: "mushroom clouds over our cities in 45 minutes" is even more of a legitimate "slam dunk."

As Dan Abrams just pointed out on CNN:

Remeber though, the defense here was that 'I might have made mistakes,' but I didn't intentionally lie.' The jury is rejecting that. The jury finding here is that the Vice President's key aide did lie. He was trying to obstruct justice. He was lying intentionally to the FBI. Not just making "mistakes." That's the crucial finding here.

Now that another case for impeachment has been adjudicated, if Members of Congress continue to delay and rationalize inaction, even those who mistakenly view impeachment as some legalistic process are demonstrating a level of self-delusion that approaches the insanity we see from the White House.

The following is for anyone who continues to believe that some "required" threshold of proof hasn't been met:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/20">Lobbying for Impeachment: Take along a Big "Clue Stick" !

. . .

• They are Congress, not the Courts.


• Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial process.


• Impeachment is defensive; not punitive.
  
  We charge Congress with the duty to defend against threats to the Constitution. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them to remove a threat by removing an official's power to harm. This is the first, and most urgent, priority.
  
  Retribution for violations of U.S. Code and International Law is for the Courts (both here and at the Hague), not Congress.


• Impeachment is bound only by the intentionally vague guidance provided by our Constitution; judicial processes are bound by our substantial body of written law and precedent.
  
  Members of Congress must make a personal judgment grounded in moral principle and the intent of the law. There are no legalisms or complex 'technicalities' that can trump reality. They must be guided by their oath and their conscience.
  
  Members of the House must decide for themselves what constitutes an impeachable offense. The House as a body defines the what steps are necessary or unnecessary to impeach. Senators decide for themselves whether articles of impeachment transmitted from the House merit impeachment, and what standard of proof to apply.


• The interests that an impeachment seeks to balance are very different from the interests that a criminal prosecution seeks to balance.
  
  
  • In a criminal trial, the standard of proof seeks to strike a balance between mistakenly:
    1. depriving a citizen of their rights
    2. releasing a guilty individual
    
    When balanced against the sanctity of our civil rights, the risk of releasing a guilty person loses.
    
    To tip the scales in favor of protecting civil rights, a very high standard of proof is applied (beyond reasonable doubt).
  
  
  • In an impeachment, the standard of proof seeks to strike a balance between mistakenly
    1. depriving an official of the privilege of power
    2. leaving power in the hands of an official who is subverting the Constitution or otherwise abusing that power
    
    Each Senator must decide for themselves what standard to apply, but when balanced against the sanctity of our Constitution, the risk of mistakenly depriving an official of the privilege of power should lose, particularly when you consider that power is granted to elected officials; it is not a basic civil right.
    
    To tip the scales in favor of protecting the Constitution, a lower standard of proof is required (e.g., probable cause, preponderance of the evidence). When Members of Congress, opinion leaders, or fellow citizens assert that a higher standard applies, we should challenge them whenever possible.
  
  In the case of Bush and Cheney, we have proofs that meet a standard much higher than impeachment calls for.
  
  When we recognize the purpose of impeachment, it becomes crystal clear that. . .
  
  Impeachment has been a moral imperative for years.
  
  http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/20">More. . .

[bigtree]

18. that's all great, but it can't be cut and pasted from DU or anywhere else into action

Hearings first, then accountability. Some of these investigations and inquiries are already underway; like Conyer's hearing on the signing statements. But, Congress isn't a court, and our democracy provides the minority many avenues to resist action.

Our democracy also provides many avenues for cooperation. Our leaders are correct in initially seeking out avenues to compromise. The alternative is more confrontation with no certain path to achieve the rebuke and stifling of Bush that we all want.

Congress needs to work together to bring our troops home. If we want to see that happen before the next election we should encourage them to work together, rather than just kick the political football back and forth. There are republican lives being lost in Iraq as well as Democratic lives. I don't expect they will remain unconcerned as Bush continues to sacrifice those lives. What I don't want is to continue the unending argument. And, it should be more than clear that the arguing would be even more intense, and positions more entrenched on each side if there wasn't an effort to find common ground with the fringe of the republican party who've come to their senses.

[pat_k]

19. Once again, you have challenged no point,, and therefore. . .

. . .have provided no argument to justify your assertion that open-ended investigations are necessary, or that impeachment hearings could not commence this week to make any one of the several possible cases for which there is more than enough evidence on the public record.

[bigtree]

20. The effort wouldn't have broad enough support in the end

given the balance of power.

They can initiate it in committee or bring it to the floor (and vote it out on a simple majority vote). bUt, after that, it becomes hard for it to proceed to anything meaningful without the cooperation of a number of the opposition party.

[pat_k]

21. As I pointed out in my reply. . .

. . .their oath is an individual oath. If a member believes that Bush and Cheney are attacking the Constitution, they are duty-bound to sound that alarm and call for impeachment (the ONLY thing that can end the attack). It doesn't matter whether they stand alone or with a legion. That's what fighting for truth and principle is all about.

We take oaths for a reason. We make commitments in advance to do things that we know will be difficult -- things that will require courage and fortitude. We take oaths to do the tough stuff in advance so that when the time comes we just do it.

The oath is not an oath to win. It is an oath to fight -- to "support and defend."

I will reiterate a few more of the points from my first reply -- points that you have yet to respond to:

• Your assumption that they will lose has no basis in reality. You cannot know how events will unfold. No human can. And that is another reason that outcome expectations have no place in the decision to act when action is a moral imperative.


• Their refusal to tell the truth about the destruction they believe Bush and Cheney are doing to the constitution because they fear opposition can only be described as cowardice -- the label you objected to in your OP.
  
  People in positions of responsibility who only take a stand and do what's right only when they think it is safe rightfully earn the disdain of the American people -- whatever job they may occupy.


• Each member who is refusing to call for impeachment is giving Bush and Cheney cover. (When crimes are brought to the attention of the people charged with stopping the crimes refuse to act, the message is "these acts are not crimes.") By giving bush and cheney cover, Members who are refusing to call for impeachment are effectively accessories after the fact to the crimes that Bush and Cheney are committing against our constitutional democracy.
  
  It is no different than a cop knowingly allowing a criminal syndicate to operate under his nose. Cops take an oath to protect the public. When they intentionally turn a blind eye to crime, they become accessories after the fact. Congress is charged with defending the Constitution. Their refusal to tell the truth about what Bush and Cheney are doing to our Constitution and do everything in their power to see them impeached is turning a blind eye to those crimes. It is reprehensible.
  
  There are many other analogies. A floor manager who is told of unsafe conditions, but who turns a blind eye out of fear of retribution from higher ups, is nevertheless held accountable for any harm caused by those conditions.

[bigtree]

22. it's not correct to assume that we, on the outside of the system

are the only ones who hold these values or intend to act on them.

[pat_k]

23. ??? I have no idea what you are trying to say with that statement.

BTW, I edited my reply after you responded to it. Didn't realize I'd posted instead of previewed.

[bigtree]

24. You believe they have betrayed their oath because they haven't yet acted in the short time

they've been in power to impeach Bush. I don't believe they've betrayed anything by proceeding as they have, or by not announcing their intention to impeach Bush.

[pat_k]

25. We can only take Pelosi at her word.

And her word -- her "off the table" edict -- is a declaration of intent to violate her oath. More on that below.

First, your assertion that I "believe they have betrayed their oath because they haven't yet acted in the short time they've been in power" is flat wrong.

The "short time" in the majority is irrelevant. Most Members of the Democratic caucus probably concluded that Bush and Cheney are a clear and present danger to the Constituion years ago, and have therefore been betraying their oath for years.

When an official in the executive or the judiciary is subverting the Constitution, there is only one mechanism by which Congress can fulfill their oath to defend the Constitution: seek to remove the threat by removing the official.

The first step in the process, formally accusing, falls to the House.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, their oath is an individual oath. As soon as a Member concludes that Bush and Cheney pose a threat, their oath demands they take defensive action. For Members of the House, that means calling for Impeachment. (When they see a threat, the first meaningful step is to speak out publicly. They are doing nothing if they refuse to call the only real stakeholders, We the People, "to arms")

Today, any member who has not yet come to the conclusion that Bush and Cheney pose a clear and present danger is willfully deluding themselves, but if a Member honestly believes the Constitution isn't under attack, they aren't obligated to take defensive action. But they'd better be prepared to tell us why the enormous number of Americans who have examined the record and concluded that that Bush and Cheney are an intolerable threat are wrong.

Back to Pelosi and her "off the table" declaration.

Even if it were not well-known that Bush and Cheney are waging war on the Constitution, when Pelosi declared the impeachment of Bush "off the table" she threw away the SOLE weapon in her arsenal capable of defending the Constitution against an attack from the Oval Office. With that pre-emptive surrender, she rendered herself incapable of fulfilling her oath to "support and defend."

We can only take her at her word -- and she has repeated it, unequivocally, over, and over, and over again. There is no basis for claims that "off the table" doesn't really mean "off the table."

It is no different than a leader arbitrarily taking a military weapon we have made available for our defense "off the table" -- something that no leader EVER does because they know that, while they never intend to use a particular weapon in our arsenal, there are always unforeseen events that may require its use.

Not only did Pelosi make a blanket declaration of her intent to violate her oath that would be reprehensible in any circumtances, the specifics of our national predicament make it even worse.

Grave charges have been brought against Bush and Cheney by elected bodies, good government organizations, experts, citizens' groups, and countless ordinary citizens.

Declaring that impeachment is "off the table" when charges that Bush and Cheney pose a clear and present danger to the Constitution are "on the table" is a declaration of intent not to act on those charges -- a declaration of intent NOT to defend the Constitution.

Such a declaration of intent not to act is only justified if it is coupled with a declaration that the Constitution is NOT under attack. Pelosi has assiduously avoided doing this.

Nancy Pelosi is a Constitutional Officer charged with defending the Constitution. She holds the unique position as the Speaker of the body charged with starting the process by which a threat can be removed. Impeachment is the only means by which she can fulfill her oath when an official poses an intolerable threat to the Constitution.

Either:

• Pelosi believes the charges against Bush and Cheney have merit.
  
  If that is the case, then she believes that Bush and Cheney pose a clear and present danger to the Constitution. Her duty to defend the Constitution demands that she make the case to her colleagues and call on them to kick off the impeachment process -- the only process capable of removing the threat.


• Pelosi believes charges have no merit.
  
  The widespread belief that the executive branch is occupied by men who are waging war on the Constitution is itself a threat to the integrity of our constitutional democracy. If she believes that the people who have concluded that Bush and Cheney are an intolerable threat to our constitutional democracy are wrong, she has a duty to seek to restore confidence in the executive by making the case that Bush and Cheney pose NO threat.

There is no escape from the stark reality that Pelosi is enabling Bush and Cheney to continue their attack with her "off the table" edict. There is no way around the reality that she, along with every member submitting to her "off the table" edict, is betraying their oath to "support and defend." (Unless of course they are out there telling us why the bushcheney War Crimes and whatnot are AOK.)

Any member who believes bush and cheney pose a threat to the Constitution are betraying their oath if they are submitting the "off the table" edict. This is NOT opinion. The moral obligations are what they are. The reality on the ground is what it is.

You can comfort yourself by saying "I don't believe it," but unless you can make a valid case for WHY you don't believe it, your denial is just a form of "see no evil, hear no evil" (BTW, the case I usually see from others, some form of "I don't believe it because I don't believe it" isn't a valid case.)

[bigtree]

27. Pelosi isn't enabling Bush at all. That's just ridiculous.

Also, all of the words you have used to describe Pelosi's state of mind have never ben uttered by her. Impeachment can be put 'on the table' as quickly as it was 'taken off'.

I take Pelosi as a Democrat who cares deeply about holding Bush accountable. Those words were uttered to allow her to proceed unfettered by constant speculation that her every action was a pretext to impeaching Bush. When one or more of the committees finishes building their case, they may well recommend impeachment, but it is, and should be, more of a process than just an edict.

[pat_k]

34. If she lied to keep office to do "good things" then she. . .

. . .is as bad as the Bush gang, lying to the American people to do the "good things" they wanted to do.

I'm sure you didn't mean to characterize her thus, but that is precisely what you do by saying "Those words were uttered to allow her to proceed unfettered. . ."

Had she been telling the truth about the war Bush and Cheney are waging on the Constitution, and been the champion of impeachment from the start, there would be no "speculation" about what she would be doing -- we would know it. Democrats would probably have won more seats than they did because they would have defined themselves as the Party of the People's Government and the Constitution; the Party that would actually Stop Bush and Cheney by doing the ONLY thing that can possibly stop them -- impeaching.

Of course, it doesn't matter if telling the truth would have led to more wins, or fewer wins. Telling the truth when it comes to an open attack on the Constitution is her duty.

I have not claimed to know anything about Pelosi's state of mind. That is something that you persist in doing. I have simply described her actions, her words, and the consequences of those actions and words. I have cited the content of her oath and the action the oath calls for in the circumstances. (e.g., I don't claim to know what she believes, I only describe the obligations if she believes x and the obligations if she believes y).

She may "care deeply." It doesn't matter what she thinks she's doing. All that matters is what she IS doing.

I imagine all the Americans who "hated racism" but stood by in silence as their fellow citizens were forced to the back of the bus, treated as less than human, and lynched to "keep them in their place," believed they "cared deeply" too. But those who failed to speak out enabled racism to florish. They were complicit, each and every one of them, with the racists.

"Our generation will not regret just bad people' s
evil words and deeds but also good people' s silence."
-- Martin Luther King

Silence in the face of wrongdoing is bad enough.

When it is your job to speak, it is contemptible.

Their oath to "support and defend" requires them to be on the "look out" for threats.

Bush and Cheney are not just a threat; they are torturing the Constitution in plain sight. There is no excuse for refusing to sound the alarm and organize a rescue. (And claiming that they are doing something "behind the scenes" is crap. If they aren't speaking publicly and mobilizing us, the stakeholders here, they are doing squat.)

The House is the body charged with beginning the process to remove the threat and each Member of that body is particularly culpable. As the Speaker, Nancy "off the table" Pelosi the most blameworthy.

Pelosi's refusal to speak out and accuse is enabling Bush and Cheney to continue. Perhaps if she spoke out she would be unable to stop them, but she would no longer be giving them cover ("Hey, we can't be doing anything wrong! If we were, Members of the House would be demanding impeachment -- they're not. The Speaker even took it 'off the table' for goodness sake!)

Her refusal to accuse is morally reprehensible and political lunacy.

But, as I said, any Member can redeem themselves today by speaking out, telling the truth -- that Bush and Cheney have turned America into a War Criminal nation that spies on its own citizens -- and demanding impeachment. As you say, she can put impeachment back on the table as fast as she took it off. If she couldn't, we wouldn't be lobbying so hard for her to do it.

But if she called on the leadership to commence impeachment hearings today, she'd still bear responsibility for her failure to do nothing to stop Bush and Cheney to date. (And wagging your finger, while saying "I won't try to stop you" is doing nothing.)

When she took impeachment of the table, she dug herself, and our Party, into a very deep moral and political hole. When they finally start telling the truth, they must admit they were wrong to have gone along with taking it off the table in the first place. Admitting error is not an easy thing, so she erected a giant roadbock with her "off the table" edict. It may turn out to be a roadblock that could end her own political future if the caucus wakes up to reality before she does.

[bigtree]

35. overdramatic nonsense

she didn't lie. she said that it's 'off the table'. It can be put back 'on the table' just as quickly.

In order for her to 'call for impeachment' CONGRESS has to make their own case. That process is already going on in committee. When that compilation of evidence is finished and complete there will be recommendations for action reported out which will likely include some proposals for impeachment. She should judge each request on the merits of the evidence Congress has gathered and on the likelihood of the success of the prosecution. It's easy enough to begin the inquiry into whether Congress should proceed to naming impeachment panels and such, but after that the normal rules of Congress apply with ample opportunities for obstruction by the minority. They will need to make a solid case IN CONGRESS for there to be a successful prosecution when a bipartisan coalition will be needed to take it to completion. It makes no sense at all to just announce the intent to impeach without sufficient evidence gathered BY CONGRESS. They need time. It took a term and a half of hounding Bill Clinton before the republicans were able to achieve their own muckraking impeachment. I think the weeks this new majority has been in place is an unreasonable amount of time to expect them to have enough of a hand to carry it off.

Once again, impeachment can be put 'back on the table' just as quickly as it was 'taken off'.

[pat_k]

37. Immobilizing and irrational rationalization.

Each and every Member of Congress has a mouth. Each Member is an individual who is ulimately responsible only for their own actions. All any Member needs to do to fulfill the obligations of their oath is open that mouth, publicly accuse Bush and Cheney, tell the American people and their colleagues that the bushcheney attacks on the Constitution demand impeachment, and do whatever they can to make impeachment and removal a reality.

It couldn't be simpler.

And it is a heck of a lot easier than what we are asking the Members of our Armed Forces to do to fulfill the obligations of their oath.

Label my assertions what you will. Deny away. You've still failed to make a case that challenges a single point.

Regarding your latest label, "overdramatic nonesense."

The Congressional Oath and the U.S. Armed Forces Oath of Enlistment begin in the same way:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;. . .

If upholding that oath at all costs is "overdramatic nonsense" somebody needs to tell the men and women who are being killed and maimed in the service of that oath that they are off the hook -- that it's all just "nonsense." (Never mind that dereliction is subject to the penalty of death under the Military Code of Justice. . . that too must just be "overdramatic nonsense").

Fortunately, more and more people are waking up to reality and are challenging the rationalizations spread by "strategerists."

Our leaders are failing to inspire us, but we are inspiring each other with "overdramatic nonsense" -- nonsense like the treasured principles embodied in our Constitution (as amended -- in it's original form, it was, as Garrison described it, "A Covenant with Death and an Agreement with Hell")

I am not singling you out bigtree. You are parroting the same pervasive self-destructive, immobilizing, and irrational rationalizations that have kept Democrats from fighting the good fights for decades. It is the blather and rationalizations that have kept the Democratic Party from inspiring the American people. Intentially or not, it says "go back to bed" America.

Those of us who have waken up are not going back to bed. If we are unable to wake up the men and women we elect to be our representatives, we will make sure they are challenged in their next primary by someone with money and clout, who knows the meaning of an oath.

[peacetheonlyway]

38. bravo Pat_K

so well said, I'm silent.

[bigtree]

39. I'm not parroting anything. My name is Ron Fullwood and these are my views.

These folks in Congress are working hard to come up with a workable rebuke to Bush. All of the rhetoric in your posts ignores the efforts they are making and dwells on your impression that they are standing still. They are not sitting on their hands or standing still. They are working through the dozens of proposals to come up with a legislative rebuke which has enough support to run the opposition gauntlet. I can't help it if you aren't 'inspired' by the legislative process. I encourage you to continue your efforts to change it. But, until that change, the system remains deliberative and one of compromise if anything at all is to be produced which will stand until signed into law, including impeachment. You can close your eyes to the political realities, but our party is in no position to dictate anything with the present balance of power. It's not a perfect system, but it is typical of the normal processes of our democratic institution, so far.

[pat_k]

41. I have ignored nothing. . .

. . .I have only pointed out that anything they do short of impeachment is impotent gesture, incapable of defending us against the war Bush and Cheney are waging on our Constitution -- not to mention that it just confirms the perception that Democrats are weak. I have pointed out that they are living in a "politics as usual" fantsay world that no longer exists. They are pretending that our Constitution, our Will, or our Laws have power over men who prove their contempt for We the People and principle of consent daily. I have pointed out that the leadership's refusal to pursue impeachment says "Bush and Cheney have done nothing intolerable." (If that is what the leadership believes, then they need to tell us so.)

Your replies are all the same. A combination of "Is not" to the points I have made and "But they are working sooooo hard, leave them alone."

I'm not leaving them alone. Neither is any other person who has awaken to the reality of our national crisis. I will keep challenging immobilizing rationalizations that have been destroying the Democratic Party wherever I find them -- whether it be in a forum, at a neighbor's house, or in the halls of Congress.

I don't blame you. Like addiction, impeachophobia is supported by a complex system of rationalizations and denial. It is incredibly difficult to overcome, and the roots of impeachophobia run very deep in the Democratic Party. We can only hope that we don't have to fall much further before we hit a "bottom" that is horrific enough wake our leaders up to what they must do.

Until we "meet" again.

Take care.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=337814">Collective denial and shared delusion. . .

[bigtree]

45. no one is afraid to impeach. it makes no sense at all to go off half-cocked

or to let the other work they are doing to hold Bush accountable get drowned out by impeachment rhetoric, hardening whatever votes they might need against every instigation from our party that the opposition supposes is a pretext to impeach Bush. Once CONGRESS collects the evidence they will act. They don't need to run around shooting their mouths off about it for a future impeachment to succeed. All they need to do is complete their investigations and act. I fully expect for this Congress, which has been in business for WEEKS to do just that. It make sense to challenge them, but to assert that they are doing nothing is false and misleading.

And, of course, delusion and denial aren't restricted to any one point of view. Rationalizations come with all arguments. I'm going to assume though, from your response, that you hold a legitimate point of view. I'm just going to conclude that you are wrong, though, rather than try to psychoanalyze your response.

[Le Taz Hot]

51. Bravo!

Outstanding points. I'm so sick to death of this milquetoast keep-the-powder-dry bullshit I could scream. Good goddess, they impeached Clinton for a fucking blow job fer crissakes! This administration has several acts of treason under its belt and that's the LEAST of what they've done. These mother fuckers need to be brought to the Hague for War Crimes.

[bigtree]

53. yeah, that worked out well for the republicans . . .

didn't it?

[Le Taz Hot]

55. Actually, it did.

Clinton's impeachment was in 1999. The Republicans took the White House in 2000 AND both Houses of Congress AND had most of the governoships. The reason they were successfully thrown out in 2006 was the fact that NO ONE, not even the MSM, could ignore ALL of the corruption running rampant in the 109th AND that too many of them supported America's war of aggression against Iraq. What it was NOT was a backlash against an impeachment almost 8 years earlier. I can't even believe you tried to make that argument on DU.

[bigtree]

57. I don't think it did a thing for the republicans to knock Clinton off of stride

It didn't stop him from continuing whatever military engagements he had going.

Republicans LOST that presidential election in 2000. I can't believe you would make THAT argument on DU.

[Le Taz Hot]

64. Tell me, Sparky,

who took office on January 21, 2001? Hmmmmm??????

[bigtree]

65. is that a colloquialism?

it wasn't the impeachment that allowed Bush to assume office, it was the Supreme Court who effectively stopped the counting of votes in Florida

[Le Taz Hot]

66. You do realize you just countered your own

argument don't you?

[Greyhound]

61. Isn't it odd that "our side" is the only side interested in "keeping their

powder dry"? The republiks don't seem to suffer from any such compulsion, no they use their powder constantly, and to great effect. This absurd notion that ammunition must be conserved even while the invaders are in the house and ransacking it is so transparently false it would be laughable, if people weren't suffering and dying because of it.

They steal elections, but our powder is dry.
They steal our treasure, but our powder is dry.
They stack the Supreme Court against us, but our powder is dry.
They wipe their asses with and then burn The Constitution, but our powder is dry.
They leave a city to drown, but our powder is dry.
They slaughter millions in another land, but our powder is dry.
They decimate our middle classes, but our powder is dry.
They dictate and impose their false morality on us, but our powder is dry.

Could it be that we have no interest in using our abundant, and very very dry, powder?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

62. Impassioned but irrational.

The one issue that you don't address is that impeachment procedings would *fail*, and as such they wouldn't be a rebuke to Bush, they'd be a gift.

Practically every supporter of impeachment procedings I've come across has done their best to avoid admitting that, but very few have denied it.

[gordon1]

14. Hearings today

Today's hearings on the fired U.S. attorneys should be informative regarding what Congress will do. I think they're on C-SPAN later.

[pat_k]

17. The only meaingful hearings are Impeachment Hearings.

All else is just finger wagging and noise to the WH, the Repubs in Congress, the media, and the public.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3146696&mesg_id=3148214

[MadHound]

26. More rationalization for continued inaction

Sure, you can defund the troops, and frankly how long will Bushco be able to limp along with them before being forced to bring them home? How long before public outrage at his tactics will force them to bring them home? Remember, this was the same tactic used by Congress in ending the Vietnam war, one that was effective. But apparently the House isn't even willing to consider it, since Whoops! Pelosi took it off the table before Congress even got started

Or the House could start impeachment hearings, Lord knows there's enough out there to ram through an impeachment. Get things going well down the impeachment trail, to a point where we could negotiate from a position of strength and get the troops home in return for dropping impeachment. But again, Whoops! Pelosi took impeachment off the table before the Congress even began.

So sure, at this point we can't do much, because we've tied our own hands behind our back. Why, I can only speculate. But I do know that rationalization like what you're engaged in, and that the party as a whole is engaged in is nothing more than making excuses for their own failures. Congress does have the power to bring this war to a halt, yet they are failing to do so. And each day that passes means more people who died. Sad to say, but by the time this war ends, the blood of innocents will be on the hands of both parties.

It is past time for excuses, past time for rationalizations. It is time to stop the war ASAP. The Congress does indeed have the power to do so if they would stop paying attention to the wishes of their corporate masters, stop worrying about how this would look for the next election, stop being afraid of being called anti-troop, stop with all of the excuses and simply go out and do the right thing, bring the madness to an end.

Anything short of that is unacceptable, and quite frankly will not be rewarded at the ballot box in '08. If the Dems want to win, they have absolutely got to realize that the anti-war left with either vote third party, or stay home in droves if the Dems fail to halt this war. And the Dems should realize that this will cost them the election. This scenario played out in '68, time the Dems learned from history in order to insure the same doesn't happen in '08.

[bigtree]

28. The fact of the limits of our majority due to the balance of power are not rationalizations

Just constantly railing against Democrats, who care just as much as we do about holding Bush accountable won't move the minority obstructionists one bit. We need to stop blaming Democrats for republican obstruction and put the pressure where the actual resistance is coming from. Our leadership is doing everything in their power to hold Bush accountable, including hearings which may well lead to a motion to move to impeachment proceedings.

[MadHound]

43. Argue your limitations loud enough and long enough, and sure enough, they'll be yours

If the majority party in Congress is so damn limited, then tell me how the 'Pugs were able to do so much, including impeaching a President, when they were in the majority? Being the majority party gives you a lot of power, including the power to set the agenda and the power of the purse. So far, the Dems have done very little, and have already taken impeachment, and defunding the war, off the table. Why in the hell would they automatically throw away two of their biggest weapons?

I'm not blaming Dems for 'Pug obstruction friend. I'm blaming Dems for their seeming unwillingness to do anything meaningful to end this war, despite the fact that the very people who gave them this majority power did so with the express directive to end the war now. This unwillingness is not the fault of the 'Pugs, no, it stems directly from the lack of a spine among the Democratic party. Apparently they're too worried about the '08 election, too worried that they'll be called bad names, too damn worried about everything except for the thousands of people who continue to die while the stand by and wring their hands.

Forget the damn Republican party, don't worry about being called names. By God, the American people put the Dems into power to bring the troops home by any means necessary. Time for the Dems to suck it up, and come out swinging.

[bigtree]

46. they are not MY limitations. They are reality. Just denying they exist won't make them go away

The republicans took until the SECOND TERM to carry out what they began in the first Clinton campaign, aided by a special prosecutor who unethically investigated the Clintons on an old, failed land deal and some dubious accusations of sexual affairs.

The meme that Democrats are failing to do 'anything' is belied by the opposition from the more strident members of our party complaining about their actions so far. It's not that they aren't doing anything, it's just not the things you want them to do. However, it's just not accurate to take the leadership's correct efforts to try and achieve a consensus bill which has broad enough support to survive the republican gauntlet and pass both houses, and describe that as 'nothing'. Coming alongside that leadership effort will be all of the more strident proposals which have even less of a measure of support and arguably less of a chance to succeed. You will have a chance to see for yourself what these proposals are up against and whatever 'power' our slim majority will be able to muster to counter that resistance.

It's just fine to 'come out swinging', but it should matter whether or not they are able to land a significant blow or if they're just disturbing the air.

[MadHound]

48. There is no need for a broad based consensus bill to stop this war

All it takes is the willpower to hold up the funding matters in committee, begin impeachment hearings, and to get out on the bully pulpit and tell the American people exactly what you're doing and why. And guess what, the American people will listen and support you because this is exactly why they elected you to majority positions in the first place.

While the Democrats are dicking around trying to get the wording that is least offensive to Bushco, people are dying, daily. How in the hell do you explain to their parents, brothers, sisters, wifes, husbands, sons and daughters that sorry, we couldn't stop the war because we wanted to get as many people as possible on the Hill in agreement with us, though we could have stopped this from the get-go by defunding it:shrug: How do you explain to those injured that whoops! sorry, but we took both the impeachment and defunding options off the table before we even took office? How do you rationalize away our incesscant delays to our soldiers in the field, to the innocent civilians in a war zone? "Sorry, but we have to play political games before we actually do something?" doesn't cut it. Blaming it on obstructionist tactic by the minority party doesn't cut it. The only thing that will cut it is to march in, pledge no more money for the war and an immediate start on impeachment. Anything else and the Democrats are failing to do the job they were elected to do.

How many more lives are you willing to sacrifice in order for the Dems to play meaningless political games, especially when then already have the power to begin to bring this war to an end?

[bigtree]

49. Holding up funding is a political non-starter, but you go ahead and BLAME DEMOCRATS FIRST

Turning their backs on the funding which will not stop Bush. If there's money in the pipeline as Kucinich and others claim then there's money enough for Bush to continue without the one emergency supplemental that folks are hollering for Democrats to reject. All he will do is claim that the original resolution gives him license to continue. He'll limp our soldiers along and blame the Democrats for every shortfall and failure.

WHO"S guaranteeing that the funding the troops need to keep them safe and secure while Bush hangs them out will be there? They aren't getting the money now. It makes more sense to take the appropriations and craft them in a way which directs Bush than to just abandon the troops in the field to Bush's whim and will. That's why we need a consensus bill to begin to bring the troops home. Just turning their backs on the funding directs Bush to do NOTHING. He needs to be confronted with a binding bill directing him, even if he vetoes it.

Even Kucinich and Feingold in their respective houses of Congress have components of their withdrawal plans which would require more than the present number of Democrats to effect into law, despite their intention to cut off funding.

The anti-war folks who criticize this Congress would have just as much difficulty in following through on their intentions if THEY were elected as the ones who are there now. Soldiers would still be dying in Iraq while their proposals floated around in the Capitol air with the others which have been obstructed, so the attempt to make it look like it's some Democratic inaction which is causing this is misleading and reprehensible. It's the majority of republicans who are responsible for our troops continued presence in Iraq. Period.

But, you go ahead and BLAME DEMOCRATS FIRST

[MadHound]

50. Geez, you don't get it, do you

What did the American people elect Dems to a majority for? Yeah, that's right, to stop this damn war by any means necessary, as soon as possible. We cut off the funding, not just this one supplemental bill, but all war funding, sooner or later, no matter how much money Bushboy has squirreled away, the war will grind to a halt. The tab for the war is running at aprox 10 billion dollars a month. You do the math.

And while Bushboy is blaming the Dems, what's to say we can't get on the bully pulpit, and tell the American people what we're doing and why? After all, the election last year showed that the American public is in our corner, let's take advantage of that:think:

And how long is it going to take to reach a consensus, craft a coalition, put together a watered down bill that will promise some sort of pullout at some vague uncertain time in the future? Are you willing to let the bloodshed continue for that long? I'm not. Besides, we can go to all of that effort to put a bill together, and Bush boy will simply veto it. And you know as well as I do that the Congressional 'Pugs aren't going to cross over and vote to override their boy's veto. So after all that time, all that effort we'll all be back to square one, excepting the thousands of lives lost, billions of dollars wasted, and untold damage done.

And you know what, if the anti-war folks were in charge, we would have as little difficulty in stopping this war as the current Congressional Dems face. Two things, defund and impeach, it's that simple. All it takes is the goddamn will to act. Instead, these Dems are worried more about the publicity, how this will play out in the next election, and being called names by 'Pugs and pundits. What they fail to realize however, is that the more they delay, the closer they come to losing the anti-war left for the '08 elections. If, come November of '08, we're still in Iraq, especially with a hawk like Hillary getting the nod, the anti-war left will either stay at home, or vote third party. And all of their triangulation and consensus building will be for naught, the Dems will be out on their ass.

Yes, I'm blaming Dems, for goddamn, they hold the power in their hands, right here, right now, to bring this war to an end. When Congress defunded the Vietnam war, it brought it to a close much quicker than it would have happened otherwise. Why don't we learn from that lesson. Grow a goddamn spine, stop worrying about what a minority of people will think, and bring this war to an end, now. Defund it, impeach the Bushboy, and you will be ending this war much quicker than dicking around trying to build concensus for a weak, watered down bill that Bush will veto anyway. They have the power to do this, it is past time that they did.

[bigtree]

52. I get it. I'm as passionate as you

they hold no power to dictate anything in the Senate, and little more in the House.

You're upset with the pace of our democracy and taking it out on our Democrats by suggesting things which they have absolutely no power to SUCCESSFULLY effect on their own. Defunding and impeachment are not foolproof options, as I've outlined repeatedly on this thread. It takes no courage to butt up against Bush without any measurable effect on his actions. Defunding has no guarantee that he wouldn't continue anyway, and impeachment is not guaranteed by all of the news articles and commentary which has exposed their crimes. Congress, which is presently investigating these issues in committee is building the case WITHIN the institution. That's the ONLY way they can prosecute him with an impeachment inquiry. That will take time. There are also a myriad of steps toward impeachment which can't be accomplished unilaterally by our party with the balance of power which exists. To suggest that all they have to do is move forward is misleading and inaccurate. They will eventually need the support of some defecting republicans to make the impeachment effort succeed. Otherwise they're just spitting into the wind.

[mtnsnake]

54. Not upset with the pace of democracy

We're upset that Democrats are backing off on any threats we heard months ago about them voting down ANY funding for the war, thus ending it. That inlcudes funding for Bush's atrocious surge proposal.

By virtue of their own admissions, Democrats have let it be known that they are bellying on any votes to de-fund because they don't want to appear as "unsupportive of the troops."

So there IS no pace for proper democratic procedure to take place because there IS no will to uphold it.

[MadHound]

56. Yes, I am upset with the pace at which this is proceding

Especially since that hold the power to speed up the pace drastically. For instance, let's take defunding the war. This can be accomplished immediately, and unilaterally. All that has to be done is simply bury any and all bills pertaining to funding the war in committees. Since the Dems hold the power in committee, and can set the agenda, this is a doable, effective strategy. Yes, I concede that Bush can probably continue to fund his war for awhile, but with the price tag coming in at roughly 10 billion dollars a month, how long can he really keep it going? A year, perhaps at the outside. How long will it take to build this consensus, craft a bipartisan, watered down, ineffective piece of legislation that will simply be vetoed by the Bushboy? At the rate things are currently going, probably a year also. So, on the one hand you have a pretty sure fire way of winding the war down within a year's time(and remember, this defunding strategy was effective in bringing the Vietnam War to a close) vs. a year spent in wrangling, negotiating, and arm twisting, all of which would again take a year, possibly more, all to bring about weak, ineffective change:shrug: Frankly, from my perspective, defunding is the way to go. But sadly, and quite irritatingly, the Dems have taken defunding off the table completely, in fact before Congress even met. Hell, even the threat of defunding could accomplish some change for the better, but that threat is no longer even there.

And impeachment is a secondary strategy, one that again the Dems could implement all on their own. Call the hearings, get the ball rolling, God knows there are enough impeachable offenses to get things moving, and we can see what shakes out. If nothing else, the threat of impeachment will become a Sword of Damacles hanging over the administration, giving the Democrats a position of strength from which all sorts of issues can be dealt with, including the war.

But waiting around and progressing in fits and starts is certainly not the answer. While we try to work bipartisanly, proceding slowly, cautiously, and with one eye always on the election, tens of thousands of people are going to die! That is the reality, and quite frankly that is not what the Dems were elected to do last fall. They were elected for one reason, and one reason only, to bring this war to an end as quickly as possible. And like I've said before, if they fail in this task, it doesn't matter what sort of PR campaign they've run, it won't matter that they're trying to create unity on the issue, the stark, glaring fact that they failed to end the war within two years will turn enough folks against them, both on the left and the right, will insure that they will be banished to the political wilderness once more come November '08.

Those are the choices that the party is facing. Hopefully those who we have elected realize the gravity of the situation and respond accordingly. We as a party, nor the rest of the world can afford to wait until the stars align just so, or the Dems have achieved a two thirds majority in Congress while taking the White House. There is simply not enough time, and for many, many people, it is literally a matter of life or death.

[bigtree]

58. again, I don't think anyone is waiting around. There are competing proposals

Not even Kucinich says to 'simply bury any and all bills pertaining to funding the war in committees.' He's backing an amendment today which would actually direct Bush through that funding appropriation.

[MadHound]

59. Yes, there are competing proposals

And Bush is already getting out his veto pen. Meanwhile, the Dems are saying that even if Bush vetoes this bill, such a bill going down due to a veto will still somehow be a victory since it will put the 'Pugs on record as still being in favor of an unpopular war:eyes: Meanwhile people will continue to die:shrug:

And around and around we'll go, with one legislative proposal after another is shot down one after the other. As Mr. Kucinich states, there is only one way to cut off the war, and that is to cut off the war funding<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/there-is-only-one-way-to-_b_35299.html>

It looks as though you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. But please note, I am predicting here and now that if we contiue to follow the path that our so called leaders in the Democratic party are laying out for us, we will still be in Iraq come election time in '08. And by still being in Iraq, with all of the death and destruction that thought entails, the Dems will lose badly come election time. Unless Kucinich gets the nod, or perhaps Obama(though I have my doubts there for a variety of reasons), Democrats won't get into the White House, and Dems will lose control of Congress. The anti war left will either stay home in droves, or vote third party.

The American people elected Dems to power for one reason, and one reason alone, to bring the troops home ASAP. If the Dems fail, they will be swept aside as suddenly as they were swept in. It is that simple friend, let's hope those in power are paying attention.

[mtnsnake]

29. Logic like this epitomizes why Democrats continue getting slapped around by Republicans

...and even when the Republicans are in the minority. Figure that.

Sorry, Big Tree, but we've got a right to expect change and to expect it to happen sooner and easier than what you're implying. Heck, all of a sudden, now that we're actually in power, we're not even hearing any RUMORS that our people are going to stop the war.

Did you forget who took over Congress? Last I knew it was Democrats, not Republicans. America sent Congress a strong message in 2006 that it wanted change. It wanted the war over PRONTO. That means starting the process ASAP, not figuring out reasons how to look supportive of the troops by voting to fund Bush's surge.

The Democratic Congress is already blowing a golden opportunity to start the process of bringing our troops home by voting down funding. Instead of following up on their earlier tough talk about cutting off funding for the war, they're bellying on the funding issue.

The poor things are now worried that they'll be perceived as "unsupportive of the troops" if they vote down Bush's surge or any other funding for the war. Republicans once again have us by the balls and we don't know what to do, or we're too afraid to do it.

Amazing how our dream comes true of a Democratic controlled Congress, and in essence the only whispers of how we should cut off funding to stop the war...or even that we should impeach...are whispers coming from the mouths of Republicans, not Democrats.

Impeachment is not a far gone conclusion. I think it will come. For the Congress, it's early. They move like snails. That's the way the system was designed; to accommodate the wide divergence of views

Try telling that to the Republicans who got Clinton impeached in short order and then went on to get rewarded with a Republican controlled Congress and 2 terms of George W Bush. They don't wait around like we do.

Anyway, getting back to the extremely important issue of ending the war, the issue was for Democrats to end it or at least start the process as soon as they took over. They're already blowing their first opportunities by bellying.

If what you say is true about how long it's supposed to take, it'll be too late to do anything about the war or anything about holding Bush accountable because, by that time, Bush will be retired happily ever after and Congress will probably be back in control of the Republicans.

Yeah, let's sit back and see what gets done by patiently waiting for nothing to even get started. You're way more patient than I am, but I'm not naive.

Don't mistake the length of time it takes for due process with sitting on our hands.

[bigtree]

30. I don't know where you get your news but the leadership is actively working

to reconcile and manage the myriad of proposals from Senators and representatives from many diverse quarters of America. Our democratic institution provides many avenues for resistance to the minority. On these high profile issues we can always expect someone in the minority to exercise those levers of resistance aggressively.

The remedy the constitution provides for that type of obstruction is a majority vote, not impeachment. If Congress wants to subvert the agenda of Bush outside of the regular legislative process, like with an impeachment, they will have to build the case within Congress which those of us on the outside of the institution may have already put together. Rep. Conyers has done this. Why do you assume that he's permanently abandoned that goal? I believe he put the prospect aside, just as the rest of the leadership has, to avoid having their every action seen as a biased pretext to impeachment, hardening any prospect that may have existed to capitalize on any areas of agreement with the minority which would help further the legislative agenda they promised throughout the campaign. Most of that effort has been accomplished, and Congress is now moving on to the areas where there is less agreement with the minority. It was correct for the leadership to begin their session by focusing on areas of agreement. That's always the best way to begin a debate. If these pressing issues cannot be resolved by compromise, there will be efforts to further them with partisan votes. That will almost certainly be met with the resistance afforded to the minority under our Constitution and the rules of Congress. The House can usually pass almost anything on a partisan vote from the majority. The Senate, however, provides individual senators with the ability to challenge and block most legislation, either in committee with individual or group filibusters and on the floor with points of order and requests for cloture votes. That political reality isn't easily thwarted by the majority. They have to have the votes. In this Congress, the balance of power just doesn't allow our majority to dictate action on bills which would automatically ensure them into law. That's not an excuse, it's a political reality. To assume that there are no Senators or Representatives who share your frustration because of the pace of action in the institution ignores the fact that Congress is a body of many different views and ambitions, and all of them can legitimately share our goal of withdrawal from Iraq and still produce a plethora of solutions on how to effect that withdrawal. That's the glut that was reported today which the leadership is trying to reconcile and manage. There are proposals to repeal the original resolution; some to replace it; others which ignore it to attach conditions to the funding. There are outright withdrawal proposals and incremental withdrawal proposals; and everything in-between. What will likely emerge as a leadership effort is the consensus proposal. That's a correct move by our leadership which should always seek consensus where it can be found. When that consensus process is concluded, successful or not, there will be a flood of the more strident proposals. You will have the opportunity to see for yourself (if you watch the process) the type of obstructions these initiatives are up against and just how much 'power' our majority has to deal with that obstruction.

I know you spoke of impeachment. I didn't forget that. I just want to make clear that our democratic institution does not provide that the majority party should be able to just dictate action without regard to the input and participation of the minority. That is proper and prudent as our party has not always held the majority and can ill afford to begin to tear at the protections the minority enjoys to ensure their participation and representation in the legislative debates.

The impeachment process involves more than the simple majority vote which allows the matter to be debated in committee. It is even more complicated when the process moves to the floor, either out of committee or by edict of the leadership. There will come votes to establish investigative committees which will require the same cooperation from the *minority that we are being denied right now. Those votes are subject to the same protections for the minority that have allowed them to block debate right now on Iraq. It is inconceivable that there can be any impeachment without a clear case made and supported by investigations and conclusions of guilt within the body. Many of those hearings are going on and scheduled right now. When there is evidence enough, the members of those committees will report out a recommendation of action which could include impeachment. For some issues, I would think that would be a forgone conclusion. But, it will take time, because that's the way our system is designed.

It should not be easy to impeach a sitting president. It is not easy. The process which allowed the republicans to achieve the hearings necessary to carry out the impeachment of Bill Clinton wasn't short at all. It was the conclusion of a campaign which began before Bill Clinton became president and continued into the halls of Congress into the offices of the republican opposition. They had no case at all until they obtained a slip-up from Klayman's hearing and bolstered by Starr's unethical misuse of his authority as special prosecutor.

None of those things exist now. I would argue that, maybe they shouldn't. If we want to prosecute Bush on Iraq, we should go after him on Iraq. If we want to provide a political wedge through the pressure of several intense investigative efforts, we should be deliberative and careful that we don't get craven and overreach like the republicans did behind Starr. I believe that our leadership is doing just that. They are proceeding with all of the dispatch that the system will allow. It's not wrong to hope for more, but our new Democratic majority is well aware that they have to produce. Follow the process and encourage it where you can, understanding and appreciating that the opposition is also following the process and exercising their own encouragement of their own agenda in the narrowly divided bodies.

[TayTay]

31. These are some of the Senate Resolutions submitted

In the 110th Congress, which is only roughly 9 weeks old. Maybe it's me, but it seems that the Democrats are doing things. It's just that they are not united on a single way to disentangle the US from Iraq. Perhaps the poster above believes that imposing a single belief rather than having the legislative and democratic process go forward and for concensus to to develop would be best. There is a name for that, and it is usualy used as the opposite of democracy the system in which ideas bubble up, are debated and argued over before any unity happens.

**************

Items 1 through 33 of 33. (Republican resolutions deleted and this is just the Senate.)
<110th> S.CON.RES.2 : A concurrent resolution expressing the bipartisan resolution on Iraq.
Sponsor: Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (introduced 1/17/2007) Cosponsors (18)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 2/1/2007 Senate floor actions. Status: Cloture on the motion to proceed not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 0 - 97. Record Vote Number: 43.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. <110th> S.CON.RES.13 : A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress.
Sponsor: Sen Sanders, Bernard (introduced 2/15/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 2/15/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. <110th> S.RES.34 : A resolution calling for the strengthening of the efforts of the United States to defeat the Taliban and terrorist networks in Afghanistan.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 1/18/2007) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 1/18/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. <110th> S.J.RES.3 : A joint resolution to specify an expiration date for the authorization of use of military force under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 and to authorize the continuing presence of United States forces in Iraq after that date for certain military operations and activities.
Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne (introduced 2/17/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 2/17/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. <110th> S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (7)
Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs
Latest Major Action: 1/4/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. <110th> S.121 : A bill to provide for the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.
Sponsor: Sen Feingold, Russell D. (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 1/4/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. <110th> S.139 : A bill to expedite review by the Supreme Court of the warrantless electronic surveillance program of the National Security Agency.
Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 1/4/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. <110th> S.147 : A bill to empower women in Afghanistan, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (4)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 1/4/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. <110th> S.233 : A bill to prohibit the use of funds for an escalation of United States military forces in Iraq above the numbers existing as of January 9, 2007.
Sponsor: Sen Kennedy, Edward M. (introduced 1/9/2007) Cosponsors (9)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 1/9/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. <110th> S.287 : A bill to prohibit the use of funds for an escalation of United States military forces in Iraq above the numbers existing as of January 9, 2007.
Sponsor: Sen Kennedy, Edward M. (introduced 1/12/2007) Cosponsors (9)
Latest Major Action: 1/16/2007 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 7.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. <110th> S.308 : A bill to prohibit an escalation in United States military forces in Iraq without prior authorization by Congress.
Sponsor: Sen Dodd, Christopher J. (introduced 1/16/2007) Cosponsors (2)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 1/16/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. <110th> S.328 : A bill to ensure the implementation of the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
Sponsor: Sen Menendez, Robert (introduced 1/17/2007) Cosponsors (1)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 1/17/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18. <110th> S.384 : A bill to provide pay protection for members of the Reserve and the National Guard, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Landrieu, Mary L. (introduced 1/24/2007) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: Senate Finance
Latest Major Action: 1/24/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. <110th> S.433 : A bill to state United States policy for Iraq, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 1/30/2007) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 1/30/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20. <110th> S.448 : A bill to prohibit the use of funds to continue deployment of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq beyond six months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Sponsor: Sen Feingold, Russell D. (introduced 1/31/2007) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 1/31/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21. <110th> S.470 : A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq.
Sponsor: Sen Levin, Carl (introduced 1/31/2007) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 2/5/2007 Senate floor actions. Status: Motion by Senator Reid to reconsider the vote by which cloture on the motion to proceed was not invoked entered in Senate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22. <110th> S.479 : A bill to reduce the incidence of suicide among veterans.
Sponsor: Sen Harkin, Tom (introduced 2/1/2007) Cosponsors (15)
Committees: Senate Veterans' Affairs
Latest Major Action: 2/1/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23. <110th> S.574 : A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq.
Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry (introduced 2/13/2007) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 2/17/2007 Senate floor actions. Status: Motion to proceed to consideration of measure withdrawn in Senate.



27. <110th> S.670 : A bill to set forth limitations on the United States military presence in Iraq and on United States aid to Iraq for security and reconstruction, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham (introduced 2/16/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 2/16/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

28. <110th> S.674 : A bill to require accountability and enhanced congressional oversight for personnel performing private security functions under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 2/16/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Armed Services
Latest Major Action: 2/16/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29. <110th> S.679 : A bill to provide a comprehensive strategy for stabilizing Iraq and redeploying United States troops from Iraq within one year.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 2/17/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 2/17/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

31. <110th> S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 2/28/2007) Cosponsors (24)
Committees: Senate Armed Services
Latest Major Action: 2/28/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

33. <110th> S.759 : A bill to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.
Sponsor: Sen Webb, Jim (introduced 3/5/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Foreign Relations
Latest Major Action: 3/5/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

[bigtree]

32. this is absolutely correct

these bills and initiatives will be attached to almost every piece of advancing legislation or presented as standing bills if they have enough support for them to prevail to be presented for an up-or-down vote.

[TayTay]

33. These bills are also the legislative process in action

There will be many competing bills filed and they will have to be debated and argued over as part of the democratic process in the Congress. There is no short-cut around this process. These Senators have genuine differences over things that actually matter and are complicated and that represent differences of opinions in their constituent bases.

This is how a legislature works. There is no shortcut around the process of hashing out the issues, debating the merits of each thing and then coming to a majority opinion. Until this process plays out, we have the split and dissension that we have now. This is not a sign of failure, it is a sign of a discussion under way.

Democracy is the messiest form of government precisely because it values multiple viewpoints and arguments. That is the strength, not the weakness of the system of government.

[mtnsnake]

44. "Perhaps the poster above" is what?

Perhaps the poster above believes that imposing a single belief rather than having the legislative and democratic process go forward and for concensus to to develop would be best. There is a name for that, and it is usualy used as the opposite of democracy

Are you suggesting that I believe in the opposite of Democracy? I think I know what you just called me behind my back. Wow, how courageous of you. Maybe next time you can muster up the decency to tell me to my face your absurdities. Nice try.

[peacetheonlyway]

36. How Congress is Preparing for War with Iran By Charging Ahmadinejad

Do you want to **REALLY*** know what congress is up to?

CHeck out this bill introduced many members of Congress and forwarded on to the Foreign Relations
Committee Tom Santos that lays the groundwork for war with Iran.

Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide... (Introduced in House)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:5:./temp/~c110sQkW7t::

HCON 21 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. CON. RES. 21

Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 9, 2007

Mr. ROTHMAN (for himself, Mr. KIRK, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. ENGEL, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. PATRICK MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. CARNEY, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. SAXTON, and Mr. LEWIS of Georgia) submitted the following concurrent resolution ; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel.

Whereas the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (commonly referred to as the `Genocide Convention') defines genocide as, among other things, the act of killing members of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the targeted group, and it also prohibits conspiracy to commit genocide, as well as `direct and public incitement to commit genocide';


*** FIRST SADDAM AND NOW AHMADINEJAD *** SAME EXACT BLUEPRINT but this time Congress is helping the
rush to War with Iran.

Call Tom Santos tell him "NOT IN MY NAME" will we NOT support another illegal war this time with Iran.
202.225.5021

[bigtree]

40. but you ignore Jim Webb's proposal that he introduced yesterday

which would prevent Bush from initiating military action in Iran without coming to Congress. There a dozen or so bills pending in both houses which propose similar restrictions on Bush's ability to wage any military action against Iran. Your insinuation that Congress is set to take action against Iran is another of those 'blame the Democrats first' complaints which completely ignores Bush and the republican's complicity in the escalating stance against sovereign Iran.

This resolution says nothing about using military action as a remedy.

[peacetheonlyway]

42. Jim Webb, Conyers and Waxman

are our only congressional hope for investigations that
lead to stopping the Bush regime's forward progress and great
momentum toward war with Iran.

I for one, wish that the 200+ and over 500 elected congress people would do their friggin jobs
instead of letting inaction lead us to a very big disaster in Iran.

Agree with you the Webb resolution is good, but coming from a DEFENSIVE rather than offensive
position.

[sampsonblk]

60. Friend, I am embarassed that you believe this

and even more embarassed that others actually agree with you.

The conventional wisdom when Bush was put into office after the 2000 election was that his "margin" was so thin that he'd have to go for consensus and "govern from the middle." Fortunately for him, there were Democrats who believed as you do, and he bulled them over. With a one vote margin in the Senate, you'd think the guy was a dictator. The IWR was passed in 2002.

Secondly, the GOP house and senate majorities were built while Democrats were busy reaching for consensus. We fought for "bipartisanship," and they screamed that we were helping the terrorists. We said "consensus" and they said "Democrats hate America and want your children to be either aborted, or killed on the battlefield by muslim fascists who hate our freedom." Their majorities grew. Even in the minority, they are still saying that stuff. How are they going to compromise with us after preaching and believing that stuff for so many years?

We will not build a consensus with the GOP as it is currently constituted. Their party is not built for bipartisanship. In fact, their constituents will not allow it. Not on major issues.

In order to beat them and establish a real working majority, we are going to have to hit them head on, and show that we are right, and they are not. We have to break their grip on the minds of the ignorant. Considering how they operate, meeting them halfway is the same as enabling them to continue what they're doing.

Keep in mind that clever strategy is not what got us into the majority in 2006. We won despite the strategists. We won because Bush has screwed up this war so badly. We have a short amount of time to show ourselves worthy of this majority. People want something done about it now. Not two years from now.

[bigtree]

63. you're equating Bush's presidency with the balance of power in Congress?

We don't have the votes. Why pretend we do? No one is saying sit still. No one is sitting still. Democrats are not in the White House so I really don't know how they are supposed to bulldoze through like you think Bush did.

You say we can't wait two years. I agree. That's why they are trying to forge a consensus. Everyone pretty much thinks whatever compromise they emerge with will face a veto, but I think it will be important to pass something which reaches Bush's desk, even if he vetoes it. He needs to be directed to do SOMETHING by Congress. They can always push the debate to the point of impeachment, but that's not governing.

And, the patronizing 'sorry for you' . . .