Simple Question: Why did Sheehan feel it necessary to storm Conyer's office and insist he Impeach?

[berni_mccoy]

It seems to me this was a great waste of effort, momentum and unity. I could be wrong, but it really looks that way to me, and I applauded Sheehan's challenge to Pelosi. Pelosi deserved it for taking Impeachment "off the table". It is important to put pressure on your reps to do the right thing and get them to reconsider. But this action by Sheehan seemed way over the top. Just a couple days before, esteemed DUer kpete was at a conference with Conyers in attendance and he had voiced complete support for Impeachment saying that if he had 3 more co-sponsors of H.R.333, that he would start the Impeachment.

So, what happened? Is Conyers now *not* going to do that? Did Sheehan blow our only chance at Impeachment? I've been travelling, so I'm really asking if something happened between the conference that kpete attended and Sheehan's protest, cause I gotta tell ya, if nothing did, then Sheehan really screwed up.

By no means am I knocking protesting or Sheehan's work. She has done a great service to this country and protest is extremely important. But it helps to attack those who are against you or blocking you, not those who are with you. I am only criticizing this move by Sheehan. It think it was a serious mistake and I'm left shrugging at what it has accomplished.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Because he had basically promised to impeach bushco

and then once the Dems won the House and Pelosi took it off the table, he backed off. We still don't understand why. One thing a lot of people don't realize is there were lots of behind the scenes discussions between Cindy and Conyers and several other impeachment activists. They had been negotiating for months with Conyers. But he refused to keep his word. So they stormed his office yesterday.

Hope that explains it a bit.

[berni_mccoy]

5. Need more details...

So, after Conyers made his famous "Let's take these two guys out!" statement in SD, did Pelosi again retake it off the table? WTF?!?! Can you point me to some news sources on this or is it all rumors in the background?

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Pelosi never put it back ON the table

A couple theories:

1. Conyers was just telling that PDA group in San Diego what he knew they wanted to hear.

2. Pelosi slapped Conyers down after what he said in San Diego.

3. Conyers has a plan to impeach but isn't ready to do it yet.

[MichiganVote]

12. And these are all just assumptions. Assumptions got us into this mess in the 1st place.

[Jed Dilligan]

14. I dunno, I think p2bl pretty much covered the board

of possibilities. Is there a possible scenario that she missed?

[MichiganVote]

19. Could be but you don't know and neither do I. And who asked you anyway?

[Jed Dilligan]

23. You're rude. nt

[MichiganVote]

24. Back at you.

[Jed Dilligan]

25. The rudest thing I've done in this thread

is participate in a discussion... on a discussion board. I was hoping you had something to say. You didn't. Too bad.

[Cha]

26. They weren't "assumptions" anyway..

PTBLib was giving it her best guess. And you're right..it was "rude".

[Jed Dilligan]

28. I was actually interested in hearing

what MichiganVote seemed to have to say.

:shrug:

[pinto]

2. (just a side note) HR Res 333 is a motion to impeach Cheney

[John Q. Citizen]

If Sheehan had the power to make Conyers do something or not do it, Conyers would

publically calling for support for impeachment.

I think Conyers may be personally in favor of impeachment, but restrained by forces greater than himself, such as a leadership who don't feel the need to defend the constitution as much as to obtain as much political power for themselves as is possible. i think they fear impeachment, because it would give the people the idea that they actually had some power. That could be dangerous down the road.

I don't believe Cindy has a thing to do with that, except that she has announced she is taking on the Speaker on her home turf.

Conyers staff has said that the Chairman, to the best of their knowledge, has never said he will push for impeachment. Make of that what you will, but I don't think it has a thing to do with Cindy or any of the other demonstrators.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. I agree with you

But I hadn't heard that Conyers staff said that. Wow. Do they not read the news?

[MichiganVote]

3. you would have to ask that...

Ok, here's what I understand-

Sheehan becomes an activist both prior to and following the 2004 election, against the war(death of son), against *, against Democrats who don't end the war or funding for the war etc., etc.

Month ago Sheehan announces she is stepping out of the limelight following the last time Congress gave *$ for the war in Iraq. Says she is tired, depleted, disillusioned.

About two weeks ago, Sheehan announces she will run for Pelosi's seat. Seemingly arranged a demonstration of Conyer's office who has been one of the strongest supporters of accountability of the * admin. Conyer's had announced that he needed 3 more votes to initiate impeachment. So office and halls of Conyer's suite were inundated with protesting bodies. Conyers met with Sheehan and a few other notables.

Outcome: people are pissed at Sheehan, people are pissed at Conyers, people are pissed at each other

Results: See above.

Effect on Bush admin.: -0-, not so much as a hairline scratch.

[berni_mccoy]

6. Why would Sheehan protest Conyers if Conyers said he would impeach (with 3 more votes)?

I just don't get it. Is she that impatient?

[John Q. Citizen]

9. I say don't jump to conclusions. Cindy, David Swansan, Conyers,

Ray MCGovern all go back pretty far. They have been working together for a long time. Activists push public officials and public officials drag their feet.

There are some who want to make this all extremely personal. I don't think it has to be taken so personally. It's just how things get done, eventually.

The impeachment activists announced their plans to walk accross the country a long time ago. Conyers office was always on their schedule.

[MichiganVote]

11. B/c some of those who protested believed that a politician made promises to them

re: impeachment and that said politician was not coming through for them. And yes, some would characterize them as impatient. Myself....any idiocy is possible in the US at present. Including the idea that politicians are magicians. Rage and anger are afoot in the land.

[liberalnurse]

4. Following bad advice for sure! She has been listening to

fringe radicals who are using her name to garner attention for for their own agenda. They stimulate her grief to where she needs to let it out somewhere. It's almost abusive what her so called friends are doing to her...Not letting her heal....Revisiting her loss until she cries, then pushing her out in front of the line of a camera............. :banghead:

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GeorgeGist]

10. simple answer

Conyer's is a chickenshitter and now it's on the record.

[porphyrian]

13. Everyone's talking about it, aren't they? - n/t

[Alexander]

15. Because she is a terrible strategist and a publicity hound.

Two years ago, I was a staunch defender of Cindy Sheehan.

But she has shown her true colors - she wants publicity and attention, nothing more.

[KittyWampus]

17. the people hanging onto her want the attention. Her capacity for Discrimination

when it comes to those around her and potential strategies seems greatly diminished.

I don't think SHE is the 'attention wh---". It's the psychic vampires around her.

[Alexander]

22. Good point, her "disciples" are far worse. I just think she's misguided...

And listening to some terrible advice.

However, she still chooses to keep them around and listen, so that does reflect on her as well.

"I don't think SHE is the 'attention wh---"."

I didn't call her that.

I called her a publicity hound.

And it's probably due to the same damn people.

[Jed Dilligan]

16. Politicians make promises and go back on them.

Protesters protest. Politicians get protested. Politicians call the cops. Cops are fascist pigs.

It astounds me on this board how many people are shocked that people act like what they are.

[undeterred]

18. Somebody had to do it.

Doesn't everyone here feel the frustration? Most of us keep it in check because we have to go on with our day to day lives, our jobs, our families. We can't afford to be full time dissenters, even though the times call for it. Looking from the outside, this was a dam that burst. I think impeachment is past due. I'm not saying this was the right strategy, the right time, the right place, the right way- but her beliefs are completely right and I feel the same frustration down to my bones. I wish 1000 people or 10,000 people had done it. Maybe then Congress would GET IT.

[pat_k]

20. Conyers never said he'd move to impeach Bush.

If Conyers had reversed himself in response to the protest, he would be the one "blowing it" by acting like an immoral, spiteful, ass.

But he didn't reverse himself.

When he said "Get these guys," he was probably thinking "Get them" with inherent contempt" -- which is an asinine thing to do because it just makes it possible for bushncheney to get the fascists on SCOTUS rule to strip Congress of that power.

And it has become clear that Conyers "need three more" referred to Kucinich's impeachment of Cheney only -- which is also an asinine thing to do since it leaves the nation hostage to the monarchical regime. (Does anyone actually believe that kicking Cheney out of the Veep's office would keep him from pulling Bush's strings?)

Conyers has never challenged Pelosi's embargo on the impeachment of Bush. (And neither has Kucinich with his "Cheney only" resolution.)

Pelosi's embargo is the Number 1 barrier to impeachment. As chairman of Judiciary, Conyers is in the BEST position to make impeachment a reality despite Pelosi's treasonous edict. Along with our own Representative, Conyers and Pelosi must be the top targets for ANYONE who wants to make impeachment a reality.

[berni_mccoy]

27. Thank you. That is what I needed. There is too much disinfo going around here now

And it didn't help that kpete used IMPEACH on the thread title. I see that Conyers never said that now.

Thank you very much!

[Hissyspit]

29. Now stop it with all that logic and reasonable analysis and stuff.

Can't you just post a good ol' "Sheehan is a nut" post like is so fashionable these days? /facetiousness

[proud2BlibKansan]

31. Yes he did say he would impeach

He said it in 2005, in 2006 and again in January 2007. I was there last January. So were many other DUers. You bet he said he would move to impeach.

[pat_k]

33. should have qualified with ". . .since Pelosi issued her "off the table" edict." (nt)

Although I qualified it in the post -- "Conyers has never challenged Pelosi's embargo on the impeachment of Bush. (And neither has Kucinich with his "Cheney only" resolution)" -- I should have made the subject clearer.

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. January 2007 was AFTER Pelosi took it off the table

[pat_k]

35. reference??

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. I was there

It was at the march in January. Many DUers were there too. We marched together. Conyers spoke before we marched.

[pat_k]

37. He said "we can fire them" at that rally, and later said he meant "vote them out". . .

Conyers can be cagey. Whenever I've seen him speak, he uses the language of an impeachment advocate (words like "fire them"), but he never commits to convening impeachment hearings. He never asserts that impeachment is the necessary response to the crimes Bush and Cheney have committed.

I have never heard a quote that actually says "We can/should/must impeach now." Even before Dems took control, his statements included some caveat that said "We can't/won't/mustn't impeach now."

[Generator]

21. Because if you heard the news today

Lead news on the NBC national news tonight and my local broadcast-the troops are going to be in Iraq until AT LEAST summer of 2009.

Why the hell would Cindy Sheehan be capable of STOPPING impeachment? That logic makes no sense. Of course she can't force it either, she's JUST one woman. One would thing she's the REASON for all our troubles if you read DU-which much mean we are doing something seriously wrong. But she's there-putting her damn body on the line. I don't know if Conyers is putting his body on the line. I'm left wondering what's really happening. I know I don't know. The rest cast asparagus like no tomorrow.

[mmonk]

32. They actually were touring members of the House Judiciary

requesting impeachment. Conyers was not the only one. She was in my state this past week. Conyers just happened to be the last. Given what Conyers had said earier, they probably thought they were going to get somewhere. But Conyers WAS NOT the only one visited on this tour.