Click here for AnswerPool.com Home page


Google

    AnswerPool.com  Hop To Forum Categories  News & Reference  Hop To Forums  Current Events    Is Impeachment taboo ? And Why ?

Moderators: Koz
Go
Post
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
  Login/Join 
Diamond
Enthusiast

Picture of frankvan
Posted
If Beal Street Could Talk - Part 2
Impeach Disney and General Electric
By David Swanson
t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor

Tuesday 16 January 2007

Remarks at the National Conference for Media Reform in Memphis, Tennessee, January 13, 2007.

By any serious standard of journalism, impeachment should be in the news right now. This illustrates the worst problem with our media. It's not how they cover stories. It's how they do not cover stories.

A Newsweek poll a while back said that 51 percent of Americans want Bush impeached and 44 percent do not. That's about double the support there was for impeaching Clinton when it was in the news every single day.

Dozens of cities have passed resolutions for impeachment. State legislatures have introduced the same. One outgoing congresswoman introduced articles of impeachment in December. Dozens of scholars have written books advocating for impeachment. There are DVDs, forums, marches, rallies, protests. A week ago, we packed a huge ballroom for an impeachment forum, and to make it easy, it was the ballroom in the National Press Club. The media couldn't make the elevator trip to be there.

And of course, the evidence of impeachable offenses is clear and overwhelming, but rarely presented in the media.

The number one reason that Congress members and their staff tell you in private that they are not yet impeaching is fear of the media. The number two reason is fear of Nancy Pelosi.

The number one reason that well-meaning citizens tell you they don't want impeachment consists of a PR strategy. People want to present an image that does not include what the corporate media says impeachment is. It is a long journey to move from seeing this as smart and strategic to seeing it as a self-defeating surrender to the corporate media.

And the independent media isn't where it needs to be either. In part, this is because it tends to retell corporate stories in a more honest way, rather than telling stories that have been untold.

It is a relatively short journey to see failure to demand impeachment as a moral failure. If we go into the next presidency with the next president free to launch wars on the basis of lies, torture, murder, detain without charge, spy without warrant, rewrite laws with signing statements, hide the workings of our government, disobey laws on his or her whim ... I don't care what party he or she is from, I don't care if it's Nelson Mandela, you don't give that power to a human being. And that's what we're doing if we fail to impeach Bush and Cheney.

Impeachment is too important to stop for consideration of elections, but if you do, and if you read John Nichols's book, you realize that impeachment is not politically dangerous. Failure to impeach when the case is clear is politically dangerous. History shows this, and you can ask John.

Impeachment does not conflict with other agenda items, such as ending the war or raising wages. Watch the video of Daniel Ellsberg from January 4th. It was only the threat of impeachment that led Nixon to not veto the bill cutting off funds for the war. And it was only the peace movement that made impeachment happen. Progressive movements help each other. We are not in competition.

There are a lot of great spokespeople for impeachment. The Mayor of Salt Lake City today called for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. I wouldn't hold my breath until you see him on Meet the Press. Liz Holtzman and I have been on a few shows. We were on Hannity and Colmes. But Hannity attacked us and Colmes basically sided with Hannity.

The media should be talking to all sorts of voices for impeachment and against it. Rather than demanding that Congress members swear they won't do it (an oath, by the way, that's based on a common understanding that the grounds for impeachment exist but should be ignored), the media should do what Sam Husseini did last night when he asked Congressman Dennis Kucinich why he has yet to introduce articles of impeachment. It's not the same question, and it matters which one is asked. If our media were serious and substantive and covered the evidence and the issues, then reporters would be unable to avoid asking "Why not?" rather than "Will you swear you won't?"

So, what can we do? Go to www.afterdowningstreet.org and get involved in urging pollsters to poll on impeachment, writing letters to editors, calling talk shows, calling producers, and protesting at media outlets.

Create a short video of yourself with your name, Congressional district, and why you want impeachment. Post it at YouTube. Learn more here: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/impeachvideo

Plan to organize a protest at your local newspaper or television station in March. Learn more at http://www.fair.org.

With enough pressure from us on the media and Congress, plus calls for impeachment being sent from state legislatures, plus investigations under way in Congress, and the ongoing and worsening war, we will get to impeachment.

But our window of opportunity to get this up and rolling is the next few months. This is an urgent demand for media activism. Put impeachment on the table and the airwaves!

*********************************************
Who's Afraid of Nancy Pelosi??
 
Posts: 7001 | Location: Baltimore, MD, U.S.A | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Site
Administrator
Picture of DorianGreyed
Posted Hide Post
Impeaching bush and cheney would be a waste of time, money, and resources. Regardless of any evidence that came out, neither would be convicted. Show trials serve no purpose. None of this is to say that a full investigation of all the wrongs this administration has done shouldn't take place. Bring all the details to light, and let them live with that. If the House or the Senate wants to get mean, they should indict a few below cheney (getting indictments asnd convictions wouldn't be difficult, or even time consuming), and watch how fast they roll over in a criminal court. Doing this would make the facts and guilt a matter of court record, with no "unindicted co-conspirator". Leave the judgment for the people and the historians.
 
Posts: 17215 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Leave the judgment for the people and the historians.


Ah, but lest you forget the lesson of History- Is that, "History is written by the Winners."
 
Posts: 362 | Location: USA | Registered: 11-05-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Site
Administrator
Picture of DorianGreyed
Posted Hide Post
bush may (or may not) have won 2 elections, but it is unlikely that he is going out a winner.
 
Posts: 17215 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Picture of frankvan
Posted Hide Post
It seems to me that the question David Swanson asks is, "Why have the media laid off this particular topic?". I can think of several possible reasons.
 
Posts: 7001 | Location: Baltimore, MD, U.S.A | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Site
Administrator
Picture of DorianGreyed
Posted Hide Post
You're right, Frank; that was what the article was about.

One of the reasons that the media has, for the most part, given this administration a free pass, may be fear of retaliation from a very vindictive White House that has shown itself to have no ethics when trying to get its way.
 
Posts: 17215 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Picture of frankvan
Posted Hide Post
Is it too far-fetched to think that if we got rid of both Bush and Cheney early enough, and with Nancy Pelosi in the White House, she might even get elected in 2008? Naturally, with every other Senator running for the presidency themselves, they probably wouldn't be too enthusiastic for that to happen. Of course, Pelosi would be suspected of a vested interest if she pushed for impeachment herself.
 
Posts: 7001 | Location: Baltimore, MD, U.S.A | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Site
Administrator
Picture of DorianGreyed
Posted Hide Post
I'm not even sure that bush and cheney could be tried at the same time, which could open up anther set of problems for the country if any impeachment comes forward.

In any case, to remove either from office would require 60 votes in the Senate, a figure I think is out of reach regardless of any evidence likely to come to light.
 
Posts: 17215 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Posted Hide Post
Out of left field...

'Viewers of Fox News, listeners to Rush Limbaugh and all the other sorry deadenders who choose Bush administration propaganda over perspective will be shocked to learn that the debate about global warming has been over for a long time...

...The Green Party, for reasons both of its environmental commitment and the seriousness with which it approaches issues of political accountability, has proposed a proper response. Responding to complaints from more than 120 scientists from seven federal agencies that they have been pressured to remove references to global warming from research reports, press releases, and communications with Congress, the Greens have accused the Bush administration of conspiring to deceive Congress and the America people about fundamental issues facing the nation. And there is a proper sanction for so serious an offense.

"Congress must recognize the Bush Administration's tampering with studies on global warming and other scientific research as an impeachable offense," says Jody Grage, who serves as treasurer of the Green Party. "Ever since Vice President Cheney initiated private meetings with oil company representatives to determine energy policy, the administration has placed the demands for corporate profits over urgent human and environmental needs."

Just as there are still those who debate whether climate change is actually taking place, there are still those who debate whether this president has committed acts that merit impeachment and removal from office...'
Holding Bush to Account for Climate Lies, Neglect
 
Posts: 7925 | Location: Canada | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
Excerpt from the Bill of Rights:

Article II. Section 4.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Now, it's just a matter of getting Congress to convict the bum! No problem, right?
Roll Eyes
 
Posts: 362 | Location: USA | Registered: 11-05-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Diamond
Enthusiast

Posted Hide Post
'A special unit run by former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's top policy aide inappropriately produced "alternative" intelligence reports that wrongly concluded that Saddam Hussein's regime had cooperated with al-Qaida, a Pentagon investigation has determined...

...The findings "are about as damning a statement as one can hear, and I think the American people will be absolutely furious," Levin continued...'
Pentagon office produced 'alternative' intelligence on Iraq

Is anyone furious? Should this add to impeachment calls?
 
Posts: 7925 | Location: Canada | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Silver
Enthusiast
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by frankvan:
Is it too far-fetched to think that if we got rid of both Bush and Cheney early enough, and with Nancy Pelosi in the White House, she might even get elected in 2008? Naturally, with every other Senator running for the presidency themselves, they probably wouldn't be too enthusiastic for that to happen. Of course, Pelosi would be suspected of a vested interest if she pushed for impeachment herself.


...............................................
Hi Frank:

I'm with you on this one.

The last one to call for impeachment would be Hillary Clinton.

If the Congress succeeded in impeaching Bush and Cheney,Nancy Pelosi would become our first female President.

No way would Hillary would stand for that...that role is reserved for Hillary.

That's why there will be no impeachment,although it's the right thing to do.

hippolips
 
Posts: 869 | Location: Temecula,CA,USA | Registered: 06-03-02Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by eve community  
 

    AnswerPool.com  Hop To Forum Categories  News & Reference  Hop To Forums  Current Events    Is Impeachment taboo ? And Why ?

© 2002-2008 AnswerPool.com



Visit DiscussionPool.com!