Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR, 3d) explains 'Why No Impeachment' to us

[Demeter]

OpEdNews.com

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_barbara__061129_rep__earl_blumenauer.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 29, 2006



By Barbara

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR, 3d) explains 'Why No Impeachment' to us

For those puzzled by Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi's taking impeachment/ouster of President Bush and Vice President Cheney "off the table" of the U.S. House, it might be instructive to read the reasons given Nov. 28 by a House member "Oregon's Earl Blumenauer" to me, a constituent in the state's bluest district where he won re-election by 74%. His views undoubtedly are shared by many House colleagues and need to be countered right now.

Last summer, his opposition to impeachment was that: 1) Republicans controlled the House; 2) to get 67 Senate votes for ouster would be impossible. But after Nov. 7's midterm elections: 1) Democrats now control the House AND Senate; and 2) Republican senators fleeing Bush and Cheney may provide those 70+ votes for ouster within the first three or four months of 2007 (Clinton proceedings took three months). All proposed investigations could be encapsulated in those proceedings to save time, money, effort

It's a given that: 1) Congressional business goes on as usual concurrently with impeachment proceedings; 2) the Senate held trials for both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton (both saved by one vote); 3) the Bush regime still has 25 months to totally topple the Constitution and our system of government before it is "on its way out the door"�; 4) impeachment will scarcely distract Americans on the Constitutional grounds for which they'll be tried (1st, 2d, 4th, 6th Amendments; Article I, Sections 7, 8, 9; Article III, Section 2); 5) Blumenauer and all in Congress will be swearing an oath to preserve, defend, and defend the Constitution from those violations that set future precedent for the divine right of kings.

Here's Blumenauer's current reasons why he opposes impeachment/ouster, plus his email address should you wish to respond to him or any other Congressional member who might share his view:


Dear Dr. Ellis:

Thank you for contacting me with your deep concerns about this administrations behavior. I have heard from a number of people who are ready for this president to be censured, even impeached. Certainly having endured the travesty of the Republican impeachment of Clinton, I can understand and sympathize with that point of view.

There are few people who worked harder in the 2004 election for George Bush not to be president. I traveled more miles, raised more money, gave more speeches, and did more political organizing than I think anyone else in Oregon.

I truly believe the country deserves better than what George Bush is providing, and I am committed to finding a new direction here in Congress. Our Democratic leaders made clear, as did virtually all our new successful candidates, that we were running to regain control of Congress and change the direction of the country.

While we will hold the president, vice president, and their administration accountable, we will not indulge in an impeachment process for an administration on its way out the door.

The practical matter is that given the rules of the Senate, there is no way that an impeachment process would lead to the removal of the President or Vice President. Instead, it would create a media circus that would detract from our mission of reversing the policies (both domestic and international) of what the public continues to see as a failing presidency.

While there is a part of me that would love to see this President publicly admonished by the Congress, I feel the American people have done that in terms of their votes in the 2006 elections.

If I were Karl Rove I would like nothing better than an impeachment process that wouldn't go anywhere to distract people from the very real failures of this administration in Iraq, with the economy, with the environment, with the ethics of this administration, and with civil liberties.

Sincerely,

Earl Blumenauer

Member of Congress (Oregon, 3d District)

For more information on my work in Congress and to sign up to receive electronic updates about these and other matters, please visit my website at http://blumenauer.house.gov.




Authors Bio: Dr. Ellis is the principal of Ellis & Associates, LLC, a writers group in Portland OR, a nominee for a Pulitzer Prize in history in 2003, and a former journalism professor at Louisiana's McNeese State University and Oregon State University. She is an active member of the South Side DFA MeetUp Group of Portland.

Back

[luckyleftyme2]

1. HOW ABOUT WAR CRIMES

HOW ABOUT JAIL TIME: FOR ABUSE OF POWER,FOR WAR CRIMES THAT WE THE PEOPLE DON'T BELIEVE IN=TORTURE!
HOW ABOUT USING THE TAPED SOUND BYTES FROM NEWS MAN,LIKE MR CHENNY DOES THIS MEAN WE WILL GO AFTER SADDAM ETC ETC.HOW ABOUT THESE LEAKS SUPPOSEDLY FROM THE ADMINISTRATION THAT IRAQ WAS NEXT?
THIS WAS 6 MONTHS BEFORE WAR WAS FRONT PAGE NEWS(WMD,NUKES,MASS MURDER ETC) YOU KNOW THE USUAL
PR TO SWING THE VOTE!
LIKE OLE "HARRT TRUMAN " SAID.
THE BUCK STOPS HERE!
AND MAN HE'S SITTING ON A TALL PILE OF SHIT THAT HE HELP TO MAKE!
SO ITS TIME TO PAY!

[Ravy]

2. Clinton was saved by far more than one vote. nt

[sam sarrha]

3. on that ... his day is comming, he will never be able to leave the country, just like Killinger

[sam sarrha]

4. it is my understanding that his 'Crime" was perjury for saying a door was open when it was shut..

during the Blow Job of Infamy that brought the ruin of western civilization.. and the spiral of mankinds morals stright into hell..

[Ravy]

6. Right, but I don't think the Rethugs got a majority, much less a 2/3 vote.

To say he was saved by only one vote is way off the mark.

[RC]

5. Finally someone who gets it and can explain it in plain English.

The following quote need to be put on bill boards all over the nation:

"The practical matter is that given the rules of the Senate, there is no way that an impeachment process would lead to the removal of the President or Vice President. Instead, it would create a media circus that would detract from our mission of reversing the policies (both domestic and international) of what the public continues to see as a failing presidency."

[cascadiance]

7. I think the same attitude could have been taken with Nixon...

... and he wouldn't have been pressured to resign then. We had to have Republican support then to convict, just like we do now. One rarely will have a super majority in the Senate that would make this impeachment a slam dunk. It probably should be that way to keep this from being a partisan battle each year.

The onus is on us the people to challenge these guys that this is about what the people want them to do, and on the media, investigation committees, etc. to get us all the information we need to know to feel that we should have a bipartisan effort to get rid of these clowns. That's what it will take. And many of us feel that is NECESSARY to restore confidence in our government now.

Impeachment of this administration isn't about playing politics. It is about carrying out the *American* responsibility of oversight over our government. Those in Washington need to be made to understand that they are misusing it if they feel it is now the same sort of "partisan" tool it was used as when they impeached Clinton.

[Demeter]

8. I Think You've Missed the Whole Point of This Posting n/t

[pat_k]

9. Do you think they have any idea how insane they sound?

The PattyK comment on the article was mine -- thought it might be worthwhile to repost here.

Do you think they have any idea how insane they sound?

. . .we were running to regain control of Congress and change the direction of the country. . .

There is no magical solution to "rule by signing statement." Passing more laws for Bush and Cheney to ignore or veto cannot "change the direction of the country."

Any member who is serious about being effective must make impeachment job one.

In the Middle East, doors of possibility that would be open to a legitimate president will remain tightly closed to the war criminals. Impeachment is the only hope.

". . .The practical matter is that given the rules of the Senate, there is no way that an impeachment process would lead to the removal of the President or Vice President. . . "

Even if we accept his irrational belief in his own omniscience, by his logic, no prosecutor should ever have charged a lynch mob with murder if they believed an all white jury would acquit when the case went to trial.

It may roll off his multilayered rationalizations and blind assumptions like water off a duck's back, but perhaps Barbara Jordan's 1974 statement on the articles of impeachment would straighten out his confusion about the duties we assigned to the House v. the Senate when the Constitution is under attack from within. (Hint: What a Member of the House thinks the Senate may or may not do is completely irrelevant to what they must do.)

". . .it would create a media circus. . "

It is hard to imagine a more effective way to unify the nation behind impeachment than a "media circus" with the accusations against Bush and Cheney in the center ring -- e.g., terrorizing us into war with the most colossal bomb threat in history (mushroom clouds over out cities in 45 minutes), committing war crimes (as ruled by the stacked Supreme Court), and willfully breaking our laws ("unitary" fig leaf for their criminal domestic surveillance program is laughable -- even Specter scoffed).

The case for impeachment is simple, clear, compelling, and complete. They committed these crimes against our constitutional democracy in plain sight.

". . .an impeachment process that wouldn't go anywhere to distract people from the very real failures of this administration. . ."

Accusing Bush and Cheney of their crimes would distract from those crimes?

". . .would love to see this President publicly admonished by the Congress, I feel the American people have done that in terms of their votes in the 2006 elections. . ."

When we elected them to serve us, we charged them with the duty to identify and defend against threats to the Constitution. We can demand they do their duty, but we cannot do it for them.

Members of Congress are well aware that Bush and Cheney are engaged in an all out attack on the Constitution (if they are not, then they have ear plugs and blinders on). The choice before them is clear: Impeach or be complicit with the War Criminals in the White House.

Get out your clue-by-fours. Looks like we'll need them to knock some sense into our so-called "leaders."