[NYTr] 3 Stooges Go to Washington

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by lo yeeOn on Usenet - Oct 13, 2007

David Swanson's Let's Try Democracy - Oct 11, 2007
http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/955

Three Stooges Go to Washington

By David Swanson

Stooge number one is the honorable Steny Hoyer, whom Bob Fertik at
Democrats.com has just awarded the honorific of Stupidest Democrat in
History. Hoyer's other title is House Majority Leader, but he cuts
deals as if he were in something worse than a minority, trading what
everybody wants away in order to obtain what nobody has any use for.

Here's the Associated Press: "A top Democratic leader opened the door
Tuesday to granting U.S. telecommunications companies retroactive legal
immunity for helping the government conduct electronic surveillance
without court orders, but said the Bush administration must first
detail what those companies did. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer,
D-Md., said providing the immunity will likely be the price of getting
President Bush to sign into law new legislation extending the
government's surveillance authority."

So, in order to destroy the Fourth Amendment for good we need to provide
immunity to those who have already violated it. What a deal! If Hoyer
had even an inkling of how to play offense rather then defense, or if
he cared about the rights of Americans, he'd immediately realize that
violating the Fourth Amendment is an impeachable offense, that the
president has confessed on camera to doing so (thus eliminating the
need for an investigation), and that phone companies are among the
least liked and most annoying entities in the country (albeit well
short of Congress in those rankings).

Why is Congress so unpopular? Here's one reason. A recent poll found
that 73 percent of Americans oppose Bush's warrantless wiretapping.

Stooge number two is, perhaps not so surprisingly, Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi. Hoyer couldn't grow a spine if he wanted to, because he
and almost every other Democrat in the House of Representatives have
made themselves vassals in Pelosi's kingdom. Pelosi was on the Ed
Shultz Show on Tuesday, and Ed tried to get a straight answer out of
her as to why she would not impeach Bush and Cheney, and what if
anything could happen that would lead her to impeach. Pelosi suggested
that it was all up to the Republican members of Congress, that she
would only impeach if it were a bipartisan effort.

But surely Pelosi knows what a "leader" is supposed to do. The
impeachment of Richard Nixon was bipartisan only after the Democrats
led the way. Bruce Fein and others claim that quite a few Republicans
(Fein says 25) are waiting only for Pelosi's leadership, and are
prepared to back impeachment.

The stooge from San Francisco also said she didn't know of any
impeachable offenses that could be proved and moved forward in
Congress. Of course violating the Fourth Amendment and FISA is
impeachable, and it's proved by Bush's confession. Rewriting laws with
signing statements is impeachable, and it's proved by the statements
posted on the White House website and by a GAO study finding that in
many cases Bush has proceeded to violate the laws he claims the right
to violate. Refusing to comply with subpoenas is impeachable, and there
is no dispute that Bush and Cheney have refused to comply.

The evidence collected here proves that Bush and Cheney intentionally
misled the nation into an illegal war of aggression. Numerous victims
prove the practice of torture. Here are 10 provable reasons to impeach
Bush and Cheney that you can send to Congress right now.

On Iraq, Pelosi told Ed Schultz she needs 60 votes in the Senate to do
anything (and presumably post-veto she would claim she needed 67), but
the public is widely aware that this is simply not true, that Pelosi
could refuse to bring up for a vote any more bills to fund the
occupation. There are now 88 Congress Members committed to funding only
withdrawal. A new poll finds that 70 percent of Americans favor
funding only "redeployment" or nothing, while 22 percent favor funding
the occupation, and another recent poll [6] found that 73 percent want
Congress to use the power of the purse to get all troops home within a
year, while 13 percent want to keep funding the occupation. CAN YOU
HEAR US NOW?

Stooge number three is none other than liberal progressive peace leader
and co-author of a book on how to leave Iraq, 1972 Democratic
presidential nominee George McGovern. He has just endorsed Hillary
Clinton for president, a candidate who intends to occupy Iraq through
2017. In a recent debate, she refused to commit to withdrawing from
Iraq by 2013, and Ted Koppel's report on NPR that her military advisor
says she intends to stay through 2017 is something she has never
disputed. McGovern's co-author William Polk recently testified before
Congress and urged Congress Members to withdraw from Iraq quickly. But
McGovern now says that the best we can hope for is a withdrawal in
2009, and Clinton is the woman to do it.

It is truly sad to see McGovern join the likes of John Conyers in
throwing away a stellar reputation late in his career. (Were Conyers to
begin impeachment proceedings, the flood of public support would
overwhelm any opposition from Pelosi, yet Conyers does nothing.)

Stooges need a supporting cast. Here they are. Here are the members of
the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Out of Iraq Caucus who have
not signed onto the Peace Pledge Letter.

Senator Bernie Sanders, Rep. Mazie Hirono, Rep. Xavier Becerra, Rep.
Madeline Bordallo, Rep. Robert Brady, Rep. Michael Capuano, Rep. Rosa
DeLauro, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick, Rep. Tom
Lantos, Rep. George Miller, Rep. Jose Serrano, Rep. Louise Slaughter,
Rep. Tom Udall, Rep. William Jefferson, Rep. John Larson, Rep. Michael
McNulty, Rep. Nick Rahall, and Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard.

Becerra's communications director sees leadership the way Hoyer,
Pelosi, and McGovern see leadership. He told me that Becerra "is an
ardent supporter of ending the war," but that as an assistant to the
Speaker he avoids signing letters that put him on "an absolute policy
track" which is something "you can't have when sitting on leadership."
Pat him on the head, Nancy.

Congressman Capuano shares the view of tables that Clinton, Obama, and
Edwards have when discussing nuking Iran, but not the view of tables
Pelosi has when discussing impeachment. He tells me: "Although I
certainly have no plans to vote in favor of funding for this war, I do
not believe that any options for progress on that objective should be
taken off the table. If the only realistic option for ending the war
was a bill that included funding and firm dates for withdrawal, I might
support that."

Of course, so might the 88 Congress Members who have found the nerve to
sign the letter, which Capuano may not have read very carefully.

Congressman Serrano makes failure to take a stand a matter of
principle, and tells me "It is my personal policy not to sign pledges
regarding future legislative actions and for that reason, and that
reason alone, I have not signed the CPC pledge. My record illustrating
my long-standing opposition to extending the war is pledge enough. My
mind will not change on the immorality and foolishness of this war-a
war that was sold based on lies and misrepresentation. It must end."

Serrano's record? This past spring he voted to fund more months of
occupation.