Not Out To Impeach President (Conyers)

[struggle4progress]

Not Out To Impeach President
May 21, 2006
John Conyers Jr.

As Republicans have become increasingly nervous about whether they will be able to maintain control of the House in the midterm elections, they have resorted to the straw-man strategy of identifying a parade of horrors to come if Democrats gain the majority. Among these is the assertion that I, as the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, would immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

I will not do that. I readily admit that I have been quite vigorous, if not relentless, in questioning the administration. The allegations I have raised are grave, serious, well-known, and based on reliable media reports and the accounts of former administration officials.

But none of these allegations can be proved or disproved until the administration answers questions. For example, to know whether intelligence was mistaken or manipulated in the run-up to the Iraq war, we need to know what information was made available to - and actually read by - decision-makers and how views contradicting the case for war were treated ..

The administration's stonewalling, and the lack of oversight by Congress, have left us to guess whether we are dealing with isolated wrongdoing, or mistakes, or something worse. In my view, the American people deserve answers, not guesses. I have proposed that we obtain these answers in a responsible and bipartisan manner ..

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-impeach0521.artmay21,0,809709.story?coll=hc-headlines-oped

[creeksneakers2]

1. Bipartisan is a bad idea.

Conyers is suggesting a bipartisan committee to investigate. Once a bipartisan investigation would start, the Republicans would twist bipartisan into meaning nonpartisan. Any criticism of Bush would be called partisan, and a violation of the rules. The public will believe that criticism of Bush must be partisan, since Conyers implies this by suggesting a bipartisan committee.

There is nothing wrong with being partisan. Our system depends on partisanship to police those in power. The parties police each other. The Democrats don't have to fear defending partisanship.

Plus the goppers on the committee will do nothing but obstruct.



That said, I think its a good idea of Conyers and the Democrats to tell the public that what they plan on is oversight and investigation with the good of the country in mind, and not a payback impeachment move.

[AndyTiedye]

2. Investigate Them First and Then Impeach Them

[Hekate]

3. Steady on, Mr. Conyers, I believe in your approach. nt

[Bucky]

4. He's right to say "bipartisan" b/c focus should be on the law, not party

Just because you're holding "bipartisan" hearings doesn't mean one of the two parties can obstruct the whole process. The committee will have votes representing the balance of the House--ideally that would mean a Democratic majority. They can kvetch, but they can't hide

[Catchawave]

5. I agree with John Conyers

and Russ Feingold and John Edwards.