G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
How To Lobby For Impeachment
By David Swanson
Created Aug 9 2007 - 10:23am
We need to impeach Bush and Cheney so that future presidents and vice
presidents understand that they cannot commit the same sorts of abuses
without risking punishment, so that we can get out of Iraq, so that we can
avoid an attack on Iran, so that we can avoid martial law in the event of a
catastrophe in the United States, and so that we can begin reversing
policies that are creating global warming. Most Congress Members do not care
very much about any of these concerns. They want to know, in order of
importance, how supporting impeachment will help them win in November of
2008, help their party win in November 2008, keep them in good standing with
their party's leadership, make the corporate media like them, and please
their constituents.
There are two impeachment bills in the House. H Res 333 sponsored by
Kucinich and 18 cosponsors includes three articles of impeachment against
Cheney. H Res 589 sponsored by Inslee and 27 cosponsors simply proposes
impeachment for Gonzales. Only 5 congress members have sponsored both bills.
Others have said publicly that they back impeachment, but have not signed
onto these bills. Others have said privately that they want impeachment but
not with these bills. Some have said privately that they only want
impeachment if it includes Bush. It is important as a citizen lobbyist to
understand that Congress is exactly like High School, but with bigger
weapons. Congress Members sign onto bills based on how cool they think the
sponsor and cosponsors are, who asks them, how they ask them, etc. But if
your Representative is resistant to signing onto these two bills, he or she
should introduce a new bill, either without any specific charges or
including some of these:
BUSH:
1. Refusal to comply with subpoenas (not disputable, and passed by the
Judiciary Committee against Nixon)
2. Routine violation of numerous laws, preceded by announcement of intention
to do so in signing statements (White House website and GAO study)
3. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of
the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant. (Confessed to.)
4. Commuting the sentence of I Lewis Scooter Libby. (Both Madison and Mason
argued at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia that impeachment
would protect against a president pardoning someone for a crime that he
himself was involved in).
5. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of
Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to
Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing
without Congressional authorization.
6. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of
thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners
hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
7. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal
residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and
without access to counsel.
8. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists,
hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white
phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
9. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation,
selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing
the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD
proliferation for political retribution.
10. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000,
2002, 2004, and 2006.
11. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after
Hurricane Katrina.
CHENEY:
1. Refusal to comply with subpoenas.
2. Creating and advocating the "Unitary Executive Theory" which is used by
the White House to defy laws duly enacted by Congress and thereby justify
dictatorial action. Cheney's office has drafted many if not all of the
signing statements.
3. Cheney played a key role in setting up illegal spying programs.
4. Coordinating campaign to obstruct the investigation of Patrick
Fitzgerald.
5. Coordinating a campaign of retribution against whistleblower Joseph
Wilson, including the outing of a covert CIA operative.
6. Leading efforts to institute routine use of torture.
7. Leading campaign to manipulate pre-war intelligence.
8. Creating secret Energy Task Force which operated in defiance of
open-government laws.
9. Directing massive no-bid contracts to his company, Halliburton, and
profiting from the same illegal war he defrauded the American public to
launch.
10-12 from H Res 333:
- Cheney has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the
citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed
Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national
security interests, to wit..
- Cheney purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the
citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship
between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States
Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national
security interests, to wit..
- Cheney has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran
absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United
States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the
national security of the United States, to wit..
How will impeachment help your representative win in November 2008?
The ideal answer to this question involves reference to a specific credible
primary or general election challenger campaigning on the issue of
impeachment. You, as good-cop, should only be referring to such an
inherently evil being. You shouldn't know them or be working with them, but
you should point them out.
Short of that, you should point out the polling (American Research Group has
done the only poll ever done on impeaching Cheney: 54% yes, 40% no, and 76%
of Democrats yes) and the energy and activism. You want to convey that
people will turn out and campaign and work to turn out the vote for an
impeachment supporter, but do nothing to help and stay home rather than
voting for a defender of Dick Cheney.
How will impeachment help their party win in November 2008?
This case is most easily made with Democrats but can be modified for
Republicans.
Bush and Cheney are the least popular president and vice president since
we've had polling. Putting them on trial and forcing Republicans to defend
them will help dramatically. The historical record shows that when a party
pushes for impeachment, it benefits. The one exception (the Clinton
impeachment) was an impeachment that three-quarters of the public opposed,
and the extent to which the Republicans suffered has been greatly
exaggerated.
When the Democrats held back from impeachment during Iran Contra, they lost
the next elections. When the Democrats led the effort to investigate and
impeach Nixon, they won big in the next election, even though Ford was
running as an incumbent. When the Republicans tried to impeach Truman, they
got what they wanted out of the Supreme Court and then won the next
elections. Articles of Impeachment have been filed against 10 presidents,
usually by Republicans, and usually with electoral success following.
When the Republicans impeached Clinton, impeachment was actually unpopular
with the public. Even so, the Republicans lost far fewer seats than is the
norm for a majority party at that point in its tenure. Two years later, they
lost seats in the Senate, which had acquitted, but maintained their strength
in the House, with representatives who had led the impeachment charge
winning big.
Parties that seek to impeach are not punished at the next election. In fact,
they frequently improve their position -- as evidenced by Dems in 1974,
Republicans in 1952, and all the way back to the Whigs of last century. In
every election back to 1842 where House members of an opposition party to a
sitting president have -- as a whole or a significant caucus within the
party -- proposed impeachment of the president, that opposition party
retained or improved its position in the House at the following election.
There is no instance of voters responding to a significant impeachment
effort by sweeping its advocates out of office. In fact, history points in a
different direction -- suggesting that voters frequently reward parties for
taking the Constitution and the rule of law seriously.
Unpopular as Bush is, Congress is even more unpopular. Passing bills that
will be vetoed won't fool people for another year and a half. Sending out
subpoenas and contempt citations that will be laughed at and ignored isn't
fooling anybody. Holding hearings rehearsing the evidence we already know
will only increase the demand for impeachment and the anger over the refusal
to act. Impeachment is the only way to turn things around.
How will impeachment keep them in good standing with their party's
leadership?
This can be answered for Democrats, but obviously not well. Try to avoid
this topic.
Encourage your Representative to explain to their party's leadership the
answer to the question above this one.
Add to that some information on the amount of time an impeachment would need
to take. Cheney and Bush could be impeached very quickly.
Nixon's impeachment took three months. Clinton's impeachment and trial
combined took four months. The current Congress has wasted more than eight
months already in avoiding impeachment, and has very little to show for it.
Congress has taken no serious steps toward ending the occupation of Iraq,
and has in fact provided major new funding for it. During Nixon's
impeachment and the lead up to it, in contrast, the threat of impeachment
allowed Congress to raise the minimum wage, create the Endangered Species
Act, and end a war.
The choice is not impeachment or passing bills to be vetoed, but impeachment
and a greater likelihood of seeing bills signed into law.
In addition, Americans do not see impeachment as a distraction, but as a
priority. They see it as restoring the Bill of Rights.
Isn't it more important to end the war? Well, ending the war is a task that
could best be accomplished by inaction, by Congress refusing to provide any
more funding. Or it could be accomplished by a bill created by one
committee. It is not a fulltime task for the entire Congress.
Should Congress actually cut off the funding and end the war, it is very
likely that Bush and Cheney would misappropriate funds from the Pentagon to
keep the occupation going. They did so in order to secretly begin the war,
and they have never been held accountable for it. So, removing them from
office is not only needed in order to put Bush and Cheney on the defensive,
but is also needed if the war is ever to actually end.
Why not do investigations and see where they lead? Because they have led to
the Bush administration refusing to comply with a growing list of subpoenas:
http://democrats.com/subpoenas [1]. The House Judiciary Committee passed
three articles of impeachment against Nixon. Article 3 was for refusal to
comply with subpoenas. And they've led to Bush ordering a former staffer not
to comply with subpoenas, and to Bush announcing that the Justice Department
will not enforce congressional contempt citations. Moreover, no new evidence
is needed to prove various charges listed above.
How will impeachment make the corporate media like your representative?
There are enough cosponsors now, that more cowardly congress members can
sign onto the current bills without being noticed by the media. But the
media tends to love adversarial issues and spokespeople, and will catch on
quickly to the ratings and sales potential of impeachment. Meanwhile, the
progressive and independent media will make a hero out of a congress member
who signs on for impeachment - just ask any of those who have done so.
How will impeachment please constituents?
See the poll numbers above. Ideally, report on a local poll. Report also on
the activism in the district and the potential for more of it. Don't
threaten. Use the good-cop, bad-cop game. Let them know that they can expect
intense lobbying and protests. Let them know how grateful many people will
be for their support. Talk to them if you can about specific victims of
Bush-Cheney policies. Put a human face on the damage they are doing.
_______
http://www.davidswanson.org [2]
About author David Swanson is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer
and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com.
http://www.davidswanson.org [3]
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By David Swanson
Created Aug 9 2007 - 10:23am
We need to impeach Bush and Cheney so that future presidents and vice
presidents understand that they cannot commit the same sorts of abuses
without risking punishment, so that we can get out of Iraq, so that we can
avoid an attack on Iran, so that we can avoid martial law in the event of a
catastrophe in the United States, and so that we can begin reversing
policies that are creating global warming. Most Congress Members do not care
very much about any of these concerns. They want to know, in order of
importance, how supporting impeachment will help them win in November of
2008, help their party win in November 2008, keep them in good standing with
their party's leadership, make the corporate media like them, and please
their constituents.
There are two impeachment bills in the House. H Res 333 sponsored by
Kucinich and 18 cosponsors includes three articles of impeachment against
Cheney. H Res 589 sponsored by Inslee and 27 cosponsors simply proposes
impeachment for Gonzales. Only 5 congress members have sponsored both bills.
Others have said publicly that they back impeachment, but have not signed
onto these bills. Others have said privately that they want impeachment but
not with these bills. Some have said privately that they only want
impeachment if it includes Bush. It is important as a citizen lobbyist to
understand that Congress is exactly like High School, but with bigger
weapons. Congress Members sign onto bills based on how cool they think the
sponsor and cosponsors are, who asks them, how they ask them, etc. But if
your Representative is resistant to signing onto these two bills, he or she
should introduce a new bill, either without any specific charges or
including some of these:
BUSH:
1. Refusal to comply with subpoenas (not disputable, and passed by the
Judiciary Committee against Nixon)
2. Routine violation of numerous laws, preceded by announcement of intention
to do so in signing statements (White House website and GAO study)
3. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of
the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant. (Confessed to.)
4. Commuting the sentence of I Lewis Scooter Libby. (Both Madison and Mason
argued at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia that impeachment
would protect against a president pardoning someone for a crime that he
himself was involved in).
5. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of
Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to
Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing
without Congressional authorization.
6. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of
thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners
hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
7. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal
residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and
without access to counsel.
8. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists,
hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white
phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
9. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation,
selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing
the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD
proliferation for political retribution.
10. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000,
2002, 2004, and 2006.
11. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after
Hurricane Katrina.
CHENEY:
1. Refusal to comply with subpoenas.
2. Creating and advocating the "Unitary Executive Theory" which is used by
the White House to defy laws duly enacted by Congress and thereby justify
dictatorial action. Cheney's office has drafted many if not all of the
signing statements.
3. Cheney played a key role in setting up illegal spying programs.
4. Coordinating campaign to obstruct the investigation of Patrick
Fitzgerald.
5. Coordinating a campaign of retribution against whistleblower Joseph
Wilson, including the outing of a covert CIA operative.
6. Leading efforts to institute routine use of torture.
7. Leading campaign to manipulate pre-war intelligence.
8. Creating secret Energy Task Force which operated in defiance of
open-government laws.
9. Directing massive no-bid contracts to his company, Halliburton, and
profiting from the same illegal war he defrauded the American public to
launch.
10-12 from H Res 333:
- Cheney has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the
citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed
Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national
security interests, to wit..
- Cheney purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the
citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship
between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States
Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national
security interests, to wit..
- Cheney has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran
absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United
States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the
national security of the United States, to wit..
How will impeachment help your representative win in November 2008?
The ideal answer to this question involves reference to a specific credible
primary or general election challenger campaigning on the issue of
impeachment. You, as good-cop, should only be referring to such an
inherently evil being. You shouldn't know them or be working with them, but
you should point them out.
Short of that, you should point out the polling (American Research Group has
done the only poll ever done on impeaching Cheney: 54% yes, 40% no, and 76%
of Democrats yes) and the energy and activism. You want to convey that
people will turn out and campaign and work to turn out the vote for an
impeachment supporter, but do nothing to help and stay home rather than
voting for a defender of Dick Cheney.
How will impeachment help their party win in November 2008?
This case is most easily made with Democrats but can be modified for
Republicans.
Bush and Cheney are the least popular president and vice president since
we've had polling. Putting them on trial and forcing Republicans to defend
them will help dramatically. The historical record shows that when a party
pushes for impeachment, it benefits. The one exception (the Clinton
impeachment) was an impeachment that three-quarters of the public opposed,
and the extent to which the Republicans suffered has been greatly
exaggerated.
When the Democrats held back from impeachment during Iran Contra, they lost
the next elections. When the Democrats led the effort to investigate and
impeach Nixon, they won big in the next election, even though Ford was
running as an incumbent. When the Republicans tried to impeach Truman, they
got what they wanted out of the Supreme Court and then won the next
elections. Articles of Impeachment have been filed against 10 presidents,
usually by Republicans, and usually with electoral success following.
When the Republicans impeached Clinton, impeachment was actually unpopular
with the public. Even so, the Republicans lost far fewer seats than is the
norm for a majority party at that point in its tenure. Two years later, they
lost seats in the Senate, which had acquitted, but maintained their strength
in the House, with representatives who had led the impeachment charge
winning big.
Parties that seek to impeach are not punished at the next election. In fact,
they frequently improve their position -- as evidenced by Dems in 1974,
Republicans in 1952, and all the way back to the Whigs of last century. In
every election back to 1842 where House members of an opposition party to a
sitting president have -- as a whole or a significant caucus within the
party -- proposed impeachment of the president, that opposition party
retained or improved its position in the House at the following election.
There is no instance of voters responding to a significant impeachment
effort by sweeping its advocates out of office. In fact, history points in a
different direction -- suggesting that voters frequently reward parties for
taking the Constitution and the rule of law seriously.
Unpopular as Bush is, Congress is even more unpopular. Passing bills that
will be vetoed won't fool people for another year and a half. Sending out
subpoenas and contempt citations that will be laughed at and ignored isn't
fooling anybody. Holding hearings rehearsing the evidence we already know
will only increase the demand for impeachment and the anger over the refusal
to act. Impeachment is the only way to turn things around.
How will impeachment keep them in good standing with their party's
leadership?
This can be answered for Democrats, but obviously not well. Try to avoid
this topic.
Encourage your Representative to explain to their party's leadership the
answer to the question above this one.
Add to that some information on the amount of time an impeachment would need
to take. Cheney and Bush could be impeached very quickly.
Nixon's impeachment took three months. Clinton's impeachment and trial
combined took four months. The current Congress has wasted more than eight
months already in avoiding impeachment, and has very little to show for it.
Congress has taken no serious steps toward ending the occupation of Iraq,
and has in fact provided major new funding for it. During Nixon's
impeachment and the lead up to it, in contrast, the threat of impeachment
allowed Congress to raise the minimum wage, create the Endangered Species
Act, and end a war.
The choice is not impeachment or passing bills to be vetoed, but impeachment
and a greater likelihood of seeing bills signed into law.
In addition, Americans do not see impeachment as a distraction, but as a
priority. They see it as restoring the Bill of Rights.
Isn't it more important to end the war? Well, ending the war is a task that
could best be accomplished by inaction, by Congress refusing to provide any
more funding. Or it could be accomplished by a bill created by one
committee. It is not a fulltime task for the entire Congress.
Should Congress actually cut off the funding and end the war, it is very
likely that Bush and Cheney would misappropriate funds from the Pentagon to
keep the occupation going. They did so in order to secretly begin the war,
and they have never been held accountable for it. So, removing them from
office is not only needed in order to put Bush and Cheney on the defensive,
but is also needed if the war is ever to actually end.
Why not do investigations and see where they lead? Because they have led to
the Bush administration refusing to comply with a growing list of subpoenas:
http://democrats.com/subpoenas [1]. The House Judiciary Committee passed
three articles of impeachment against Nixon. Article 3 was for refusal to
comply with subpoenas. And they've led to Bush ordering a former staffer not
to comply with subpoenas, and to Bush announcing that the Justice Department
will not enforce congressional contempt citations. Moreover, no new evidence
is needed to prove various charges listed above.
How will impeachment make the corporate media like your representative?
There are enough cosponsors now, that more cowardly congress members can
sign onto the current bills without being noticed by the media. But the
media tends to love adversarial issues and spokespeople, and will catch on
quickly to the ratings and sales potential of impeachment. Meanwhile, the
progressive and independent media will make a hero out of a congress member
who signs on for impeachment - just ask any of those who have done so.
How will impeachment please constituents?
See the poll numbers above. Ideally, report on a local poll. Report also on
the activism in the district and the potential for more of it. Don't
threaten. Use the good-cop, bad-cop game. Let them know that they can expect
intense lobbying and protests. Let them know how grateful many people will
be for their support. Talk to them if you can about specific victims of
Bush-Cheney policies. Put a human face on the damage they are doing.
_______
http://www.davidswanson.org [2]
About author David Swanson is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer
and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com.
http://www.davidswanson.org [3]
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
vmdnUyBYoXYYCHbnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com...