Did Democrat leadership bury Cheney impeachment?

Did Democrat leadership bury Cheney impeachment?

David Swanson talks about U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich's impeachment bill

Wednesday November 7th, 2007

This is a merely POLITICAL statement and doesn't represent people's views.

Polls have CONSISTENTLY shown that people voted for the Democrats to get RID OF THE TORTURE part of the US' attacks on people and the torture they have been shown.

Why Harry Reid, Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi REFUSE to stop these practics and war funding continues is beyond comprehension. This is not about playing "safe"; this is about refusal to end the occupation in Irak and give up all that lovely OIL and what they perceive as a way to get kickbacks from defense contractors, Homeland Security firms while going along with the right-wing think tanks' apologies for "America's midrange 'strategic' advantage".

The killing and torture will not stop unless the PEOPLE stop it. Forget the committees, they aren't working - they are simply STONEWALLING. Yes, push your representative, yes keep on calling but remember the killing has made them INSENSITIVE otherwise they would be leading the antiwar, antinuke movements, even the environmental movement - but obviously they are NOT.

This is a global question and again, if we DON'T act, the rest of the world will be doing it anyway OR they'll have LEGAL GROUNDS TO ATTACK AMERICA, something not even mentioned on this The Real News interview.

I am not interested in watching more TV interviews, I am interested in watching MORE TV interviews, I am interested in seeing an end to the killing and nuclear pollution of INNOCENT VICTIMS.

Remember: The people in CONgress willingly voted to keep funding the war in full cognizence that this was against the Geneva Conventions!! They have all the Constitutional and international lawyers anyone to come and give them this opinion. The know fully well what they are doing. And to put it bluntly.

They do not care.

But we, you and me, we care. It's definitively time to get Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers out of the way.

And don't think you are "Helping" a single politician by insisting on impeachment - just do it

BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO

Transcript:

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR: On Tuesday in the House of Representatives, Dennis Kucinich tried to move his resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney in a crazy back-and-forth of votes to table the motion, votes to send it to the judiciary committee, with the Republicans first voting one way to table it and then changing their minds and then voting not to table it, trying to force a debate, in theory to embarrass the leading Democrats. In the final analysis, it came to a vote whether to let the thing proceed or get stuck in the judiciary committee. And only five Democrats voted with Kucinich, with all Republicans who wanted to push this thing ahead. It was a rather confusing and dramatic day, and to help us make sense of it is David Swanson, the founder of the Website impeachcheney.org. So, David, what the heck happened yesterday?

Rest of the transcript HERE

Friends,

Last night I cast my vote in support of H.R. 4156, The Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act. This legislation marks the first time redeployment language has been attached to funding and includes the strongest-worded language to date by stating Congress' explicit commitment to end the war in Iraq as safely and quickly as possible and that our troops should be brought home.

With your fierce support and effective advocacy, the letter my colleagues Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and I sent to President Bush stating that we would only support funding for the redeployment of our troops has grown from 70 to 92 signatories. This momentum put us in the position to include language in this bill which clarifies that the main purpose of any funding is to begin the redeployment of our troops home to their families- and not to extend or prolong the war. While this bill is far from perfect, I applaud the shared commitment of the Democratic Congress in both the House and Senate to end the war in Iraq.

I share the public's dismay at the slow pace of Congress' action to end President Bush's failed war. I assure my friends in the peace movement that this legislation is a step in the right direction, but that I will not rest until I cast my vote to fund the departure of the last American servicemember, dismantle the last military base, and bring the last contractor home from Iraq.”

Best regards,
Rep. Maxine Waters

Liberal Dems Back Party's War Bill Wednesday November 14, 2007 6:16 PM By ANNE FLAHERTY Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Three leading House anti-war Democrats said they now back a $50 billion bill that funds the war but calls for most troops to come home by December 2008. Their support paves the way for the bill's passage Wednesday. The trio, California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, represent a liberal anti-war caucus that last week expressed opposition to the measure on the grounds it was too soft and did not demand an end to combat. The bill requires that President Bush initiate troop withdrawals within 30 days of its passage with the goal of bringing home most soldiers and Marines by Dec. 15, 2008. The White House said Bush would veto the bill if it comes to him. Presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino called the legislation the ``height of irresponsibility,'' charging Democrats with merely trying to ``appease radical groups'' such as MoveOn.org and Code Pink. ``Once again, the Democratic leadership is starting this debate with a flawed strategy, including a withdrawal date for Iraq, despite the gains our military has made over the past year, despite having dozens of similar votes in the past that have failed, and despite their pledge to support the troops,'' she said. ``Democrats believe that these votes will somehow punish the president, but it actually punishes the troops.'' A provision added to the bill, to satisfy liberal caucus members, states that the primary purpose of the $50 billion included in the bill ``should be to transition the mission'' and redeploy troops in Iraq, ``not to extend or prolong the war.'' The measure is largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who has already begun withdrawing some troops but fiercely rejects the notion of setting a timetable for the war. ``While this bill is not perfect, it is the strongest Iraq bill to date,'' the Democratic trio wrote in a joint statement. ``This is the first time that this Congress has put forth a bill that ties funding to the responsible redeployment of our troops, and it also includes language mandating a start date for the president to begin the redeployment of our brave men and women.'' Woolsey, Lee and Waters said they remained disappointed that the 2008 date was a nonbinding goal that Bush could ignore. But, they said they realized the provision made it more likely that the Senate could pass it. ``This is a concrete step in the right direction, and an important marker for this Congress to lay down,'' they wrote. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters on Wednesday that he anticipates the bill will pass. Similar legislation has repeatedly passed along party lines in the House only to sink in the Senate, where Democrats hold a razor-thin majority and 60 votes are needed to overcome procedural hurdles. It is expected that if the measure fails in the Senate, Democrats will not consider Bush's war spending request until next year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that if it does pass and Bush rejects the bill, ``then the president won't get his $50 billion.'' The money included in the bill represents about a quarter of Bush's $196 billion war spending request for the 2008 budget year, which began Oct. 1. Democrats say the military won't need the money until early next year. Until then, the Pentagon can transfer money from less urgent accounts or fourth quarter spending to cover costs, they say. The Pentagon says moving money around is a bureaucratic nightmare that costs more in the long-run. And if taken to the extreme, the military would eventually have to freeze contracts or lay off civilian workers to ensure troops in combat have what they need. In another provision sure to draw White House opposition, the House bill would require that all government interrogators rely on the Army's field manual. The Army's manual was updated in 2006 to specifically ban the military from using aggressive interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding. The bill also requires that the president certify to Congress 15 days in advance that a unit being sent into combat is ``fully mission capable,'' although Bush could waive that requirement if necessary.