It's almost as if pro-impeachment protesters of Conyers want his upcoming subpoena action to fail

[bigtree]

I just can't understand why anyone advocating such a dubious process as a hasty impeachment -- undertaken without the benefit of any outside prosecution -- which has the likely prospect of an outright acquittal along party lines -- would be so dismissive and defeating of the congressional investigatory effort by Conyers which could very well lead to the accountability folks claim they want.

I really don't see how any of these folks protesting Conyers THIS WEEK - the very week that Congress is prepared to vote on enforcing the White House subpoenas produced by the congressman's committee - can claim to be so concerned with upholding the rule of law or defending the constitution while they refuse to support or even acknowledge the efforts of those, like Conyers, to directly challenge the extraordinary and obscene claims of Executive privilege in court that the administration intends to shield their lackey accomplices from accountability and prosecution.

To me, just hollering for impeachment at every instance where the administration's crimes and abuses are revealed (no matter the merits) without lifting a finger to support or defend any of the many other levers of accountability available short of the yet-unsupported course of impeachment; staging that protest against the manager of the most direct confrontation of the White House in Bush's entire term; ignoring and pushing aside the important confrontation that Conyers is leading against the administration; denouncing the one Democratic legislator who has the potential of actually succeeding in his congressional prosecution; is a deliberate capitulation, by the default of indifference and inaction, to the conjured assertions of Executive Obstruction by the administration.

I'd like an impeachment as well as anyone, but I don't see any reasonable purpose in disrupting or disparaging the affairs of Conyers right at the point where he is moving precipitously forward in his prosecution of the administration. It's not so far out of hand to wonder what it really is, besides accountability of the administration, which is motivating wrong-headed, misdirected protests like the one which engulfed the Chairman's office and spilled over into this rhetorical slapfight.

I'll satisfy my own suspicions by reassuring myself that a zeal to be seen as right and correct in their affairs, by some, wouldn't trump their concern for actually doing the right thing in holding this administration to task at every opportunity. The lack of support and participation in the efforts of those Democrats in Congress working so hard to accomplish that accountability are not at all encouraging.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[xultar]

1. I think the protesters are working for the other side.

Now watch them forget they said the same thing about Conyers. They can dish it but they can't take it.

[bryant69]

2. Agreed.

it is a catch 22 because certainly when you look at who's actions are benefiting Bush and our republican friends, well, there's some obvious candidates.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[endarkenment]

10. yes we are all agent provocateurs.

no wait, you've got the better shoes, you're the agent! No, hold on, that new guy sure looks shifty...

Such a productive train of thought, leading straight to paralysis.

[Guaranteed]

4. I wouldn't go that far.

But they're just fucking losing it.

[EFerrari]

7. Oh, please. Can't we do anything else to set fire to GD?

Here's my confession: I'm playing on the other team. I said Mr. Conyers was Bush. Don't hurt me, I can't take it.

And, leave my dog out of this.

[bigtree]

12. ooh!ooh!

pretender! fabulist!

[EFerrari]

13. I'll come along quietly, bigtree.

lol

[salinen]

28. No way

Your dog was spotted at a Guliani fund raiser.

[EFerrari]

36. LOL! And I got NO CUT!

lol

[endarkenment]

3. We should all sit quietly and wait. That has been working so well.

After all our party leaders helped get us into this mess, so they are surely the experts at getting us out of it.

We will be good now that you have explained it all to us.

[bigtree]

5. actively supporting the ongoing efforts of our Democratic investigatory committees

is not sitting quietly and waiting

[endarkenment]

11. Oh so you are organizing the support Conyers demonstration?

When and where is it?

[bigtree]

14. you can start here:

U.S. House of Representatives - Write Your Representative
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

[endarkenment]

16. We should all sit quietly and wait. That has been working so well.

After all our party leaders helped get us into this mess, so they are surely the experts at getting us out of it.

We will be good now that you have explained it all to us.

[bigtree]

22. circling . . .

. . . your own circular argument

[Guaranteed]

6. No, we should start being reckless. Let's get hysterical!

Let's allow our anger to cloud our good judgment. Let's start shooting first and asking questions later. Measuring once and cutting twice.

Do I have to bring out Kent Brockman again?

Kent: Hordes of panicky people seem to be evacuating the town for
some unknown reason. Professor, without knowing precisely what
the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers to crack
each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?

Prof.: Mmm, yes I would, Kent.

[endarkenment]

9. Perhaps there are paths between these two extremes?

Perhaps the actions of others that you find so misguided are also viable and help further awareness and, even though you would not choose to act this way, are helping the common goals we share?

Perhaps protesting at Conyers office does not in any way harm Conyer's efforts to build the case against the administration, but does keep pressure on Conyers to do just that, does put pressure on Off the Table Pelosi to change course?

If our fabulous and pure party leadership thinks the progressive base is going to stay home and shut up and wait for them to do something, I am convinced that what they will do is settle into the comfortable role of pseudo-opposition party, enjoy the increased perks of power that are bestowed on the majority party in congress, and wait out the next 16 months to see what January 09 has in store for them. Possibly even more great new toys and excellent new perks and benefits!

[mzmolly]

23. Perhaps perhaps perhaps.

Perhaps protesting at Conyers office does not in any way harm Conyer's efforts to build the case against the administration, but does keep pressure on Conyers to do just that, does put pressure on Off the Table Pelosi to change course?

Perhaps this kind of protest does harm the process? Perhaps public grand-standing will make Conyers look like he's "caving" to bullies rather than building a methodical case? Perhaps when we ARE in a position to impeach, Cindy Sheehan's name will be noted AS THE REASON sans the actual crimes of this @#% administration? ... Perhaps.

[adamuu]

34. that kind of faulty reasoning helped us get where

we are now.
Go ahead, hit the panic button. Doing something, anything, is always better than doing nothing. Yeah right.

[blogslut]

8. I want Conyers to succeed

I want him to file inherent contempt. If not, I want him to file statutory contempt > have the WH defy the charge > This will justify writing up and voting on the first article of impeachment.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. When One Has Lost All Sense Of Reason, Their Actions No Longer Make Sense.

Sounds like a fortune cookie, don't it?

But I'd say quite insightful anyway. :)

[endarkenment]

17. "One's" action no longer make sense.

"When One Has Lost All Sense Of Reason, Their Actions No Longer Make Sense." doesn't actually make any sense.

-thanks for paying attention.

The grammar nazis.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. How Foolish.

First off, you're acting like a provocative child. What cracks me up further is that you made several errors in your own statement.

It would've been one's actions, not one's action.

You said ""When One Has Lost All Sense Of Reason, Their Actions No Longer Make Sense." doesn't actually make any sense.", yet it is readily clear that it made perfect sense to you, or you wouldn't have been able to so easily alter it to its correct form.

The word 'thanks' should also be capitalized, I would think.

Lastly, you were acting alone. You therefore are only a grammar nazi, not a group of grammar nazis.

In spite of that, you look like a fool anyway.

[mzmolly]

18. A breath of fresh air

and reason. THANK YOU, recommended. :toast:

[Exiled in America]

19. Well worded and completely missing the point in every possible way.

People aren't recklessly supporting impeachment while failing to support all other courses (perhaps even prerequisite courses). It isn't reckless. It's in direct response to the spectacular mistakes of congressional leadership.

The reason people are aggressively advocating for impeachment is ONLY because congressional leadership so adamantly shut the door on even considering it. If they had never, ever made that stupid ass totally ridiculous statement that impeachment was "off the table" they would have found that the overwhelming majority of these people now protesting their lack of courage would have instead supported the FULL process of inquiry and investigation that makes the case and wins the votes for impeachment.

But instead, you have congressional leaders steadfastly refusing to say what they have the utmost duty to say: NOTHING is off the table.

I hope people never, ever give their representatives a moments rest about the subject of impeachment until congress changes its tune as makes it clear that impeachment is not off the table. They should have never ever made that statement and the only reason it was made was as a ploy to try to compromise and work with republicans, something that a republican majority would never, never, never, never, never, never, never EVER do for a democratic minority, no matter how small their majority margin.

[EstimatedProphet]

24. Actually, that's not true about recklessly supporting impeachment

And it's one of the things that has frustrated me about the argument. I have seen people here argue that we should begin impeachment, RIGHT NOW, UP OR DOWN VOTE, NO BUILDING OF A CASE. That's their argument - Impeach now, or you're a mole for the Republicans!

Sorry, that's ridiculous.

[bigtree]

29. you make the correct point that nothing is ever off of the table

I think the Speaker has understood this all along. I believe it makes perfect sense for the leader of the whole House to position herself as impartial in the matter of any possible impeachment, to take away the prospect of inevitable charges of partisanship - especially if the effort is one initiated and generated entirely from our own side of the aisle. Her position also prevents every action she takes being viewed or cast as a pretext to the removal of the Executive from office.

But, there is really nothing she could do to stop an impeachment if there was actually enough workable support for the effort within the caucus.

[Usrename]

20. I have no idea what you are talking about.

The Libby case has been adjucicated and his sentence commuted.

What are you talking about?

[bigtree]

25. Does that mean that the entire process that convicted Libby

. . . should have been ignored, dismssed, and disparaged like the present and ongoing efforts of our Democrat-led investigatory committees in Congress were by many of the pro-impeachment protesters who decided right now was the perfect time to confront and belittle the Chairman for not moving forward on an issue that he's expressed agreement with?

[Usrename]

35. I guess I don't understand the whole construct.

You seem to be arguing that there is more work to do. I think a lot of work has already been done.

You also seem to be arguing that Cheney has a lot of political support in the Senate. I don't think that he does.

[Forkboy]

26. It's almost as if some of the anti-impeachment people are cowards who need a blankey.

Now,I realize that's probably not the case (for those who are sarcastically challenged),but hey..."almost as if" and all....right?

[salinen]

31. If Impeachment is "off the table"

for killing 650,000 innocents + 3600, what would put Impeachment "on the table". Pelosi has foot in mouth.

[mikelgb]

27. true investigations begin with Impeachment

must be on the table

Conyers should reintroduce his legislation

[bigtree]

30. Tell that to the Watergate Committee or the Whitewater Committee . . .

. . . both of which preceded the initiation of impeachment proceedings in both of the only contemporary efforts undertaken.

[mikelgb]

32. sounds good

how about the Bush Crimes Committee?

the point I take from you is that there were special steps taken in those insances

not just normal congressional hearings

a crime was alleged and investigated

we can't even get people to say there are definite crimes to be investigated... just the there MAY be

"at best you misspoke"

but they never say "but in all likelihood you are a fucking liar"

[bigtree]

33. a 'Special Committee'

I think that's an idea which is overdue

[Nunyabiz]

37. You could not possibly be more wrong