Cindy Sheehan/Afterdowningstreet.org protest at Conyers office - explanation from Swanson

[shireen]

I emailed David Swanson yesterday, asking him to post an explanation about why they're planning to protest Conyers. He's written an interesting message at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/sit

We Will Sit In for Impeachment
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-07-05 18:45.
Why Would Anyone Protest John Conyers?
By David Swanson

John Conyers has a great quote in John Nichols' book "The Genius of Impeachment" (pointed out by attentive reader Gordon Bennett):

"I have a choice. I can either stand by and lead my constituents to believe I do not care that the president apparently no longer believes he is bound by any law or code of decency. Or I can act."

On the 5th Anniversary of the Downing Street Meeting and the same day as a Dem Prez candidates debate in the evening on CNN, Youtube, and Google, July 23, 2007, Cindy Sheehan plans to lead a delegation to Congressman John Conyers' office in DC to demand impeachment. Ray McGovern will be among those marching to Conyers' office from Arlington National Cemetery (meeting there at 10 a.m.). Cindy and Ray were two of the four witnesses in Conyers' basement hearing on the Downing Street Minutes in June 2005.

This time, we've not been invited. We plan to sit and read the Constitution aloud. If necessary, we will face arrest.

This is part of a march that Cindy and others are making from Texas to New York. The march may make stops at the district offices of other House Judiciary Committee Members, such as Rick Boucher, Mel Watt, and Bobby Scott.

You can organize a meeting, protest, honk-a-thon, or sit-in at your Congress Member's office. One way to get organized is with this system. You can find events and create them here. And you can meet people in Facebook.

We need a nonviolent revolution to compel our Congress Members to revive our Constitution. Sitting in their offices and reading the Constitution out loud, if enough of us do it, may save our democracy.

Citizens are planning sit-ins the same day in several Congress Members' district offices, including Congressman Conyers' offices in Michigan.
...
much more at the website, http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/sit


Now, please don't go screaming at me. I'm just the messenger.

[bryant69]

1. I wonder who knows more about these matters

Cindy Sheehan or John Conyers.

I wonder who's judgment is more trustworthy on these matters.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Tom Joad]

5. The grassroots and civil society or an established congressperson. That's easy. Go cindy.

[John Q. Citizen]

28. I say alway submit to authority. It's proven it's value so often in the past...

[Tom Joad]

32. Who knew better on Vietnam, the protesters in the street or LBJ?

[John Q. Citizen]

35. Exactly. If the protestors had only submitted to authority we would have 100,000

names on the Wall.

Everyone knows more is better....

[bryant69]

40. I respect Conyers

I think he's done a lot of good work in the past. I don't just respect the office, I respect the man who holds it. I think he's proven his worth time and time again, for a long time.

Bryant

[John Q. Citizen]

41. So you respect him when he said impeachment is imperitive, before he got

the Chairmanship, and you respect him now that he says impeachment is off the table after he got the chairmanship.

Why? Because he can say two oppsing things but you will respect him no matter what?

I like Conyers, I always have, but he's making a huge mistake flip-floping based on whether he holds the chair or not.

[robinlynne]

43. when did conyers say impeachment is off the table?

[John Q. Citizen]

54. Here;

This is from John Conyers's website blog, dated November 15, 2006:

We need to put aside any thought of anger or payback. Instead we need to focus on identifying and correcting abuses and pass legislation which serves the interests of the American people.



Having devoted a considerable amount of time and attention to detailing the many abuses of the Bush Administration, I firmly believe that we have brought these matters to the attention of the American people and the mainstream media, and that their verdict was reflected in the elections on November 7.



As many of you also know, I have agreed with Speaker-to-be Pelosi that impeachment is off the table. Instead, we agree that oversight, accountability and checks and balances – which have been sorely lacking for the last six years – must occur. I have nothing but respect for those who might disagree, but that is where I come out.

http://www.democrats.com/node/11050

[EFerrari]

51. Because appealing to authority always trumps critical thinking?

:silly:

[Tom Joad]

2. I firmly believe that the grassroots need to pressure congress on this.

Go Cindy

[uppityperson]

10. exactly.

[leftchick]

16. That is the only way it will happen!

Cindy Speaks For Me!!!

[bonito]

3. Thanks n/t

[lazer47]

4. Thats right Cindy if you don't get your way,,

go ahead and alienate the people who helped you, trash the people who stood with you, thats the thing to do,,,You go girl:sarcasm:

[Tom Joad]

6. you make this sound as if she were asking for ice cream... when she is speaking for many of us

to stop this criminal class from its continuation of a genocidal war.

[lazer47]

7. You stop the criminal class by protesting the Freeking Repubs

not the DEMS.

[uppityperson]

9. Yeah, don't ask the Democrats to stand up and act! Really, how dare she!

How DARE she ask the party with the majority to do something?



sarcasm.

[lazer47]

13. There is a big difference between WANTING and GETTING

wanting dosen't require a person to do anything,,, getting requires we work TOGETHER to accomplise that goal,, not infighting

[uppityperson]

18. do we have to sing kum bay yah too? Of course there will be disagreements

The goal is not to have everyone agree on everything, but to get stuff done and of course there will be disagreements and pressure needed. Repubs won't listen, go after those who might. I am sure that Mr. Conyers expects people to contact him and ask for things and pressure him. Part of the job.

[lazer47]

21. Sing whatever you want,, I tire of this cheap banter,,,,EOM

[uppityperson]

24. OK, I'll make it simpler

You write "getting requires we work TOGETHER to accomplise that goal,, not infighting"
So can there be no disagreements? Must we all get along?

In my opinion, the goal is NOT to have everyone agree on everything, but to get stuff done and of course there will be disagreements and pressure needed. Repubs won't listen, go after those who might. I am sure that Mr. Conyers expects people to contact him and ask for things and pressure him. Part of the job.

[Virginia Dare]

29. Disagreements and debate are expected and welcomed..

cheap shots and drive-by smear tactics aren't.

[John Q. Citizen]

34. Dem controlled congress approval rating from 46% to 23% They are brillent

and anyone who would sit-in in their offices obviously don't get the plan to drive public opinion down to 16%!

We should get out of Congresses' way and let them achieve the 16% they deserve! After all, they've been doing all the work.

[Virginia Dare]

38. Congress rarely has high approval ratings..

everybody always says my congressman is just fine and dandy, it's yours that I don't like. Approval ratings of Congress mean even less than Presidential ratings. Politicians are universally despised, probably with good reason, but what are you going to do, you can't live with them and you can't live without them.

[Forkboy]

14. Protesting those who don't care,never will care,and who just ignore you is a waste of time.

The Dems care,and might,just might,listen.Hence,you pressure them.

Pretty basic really. :shrug:

[shireen]

17. where's a fire-breathing giant lizard when you need one? :-) nt

[Forkboy]

20. I keep mailing him but he says he has other matter to deal with.

Something about "Tokyo...blah blah blah...big moth...blah blah blah...Kilaaks taking over..."

Fucking slacker! :)

[Virginia Dare]

31. I've got no problem with peaceful protests at Democratic offices..

insults, cheap shots and purposeful embarassment is something totally different.

[leftchick]

23. lol!

:crazy:

[Tom Joad]

30. right, bush should place himself under arrest.

[FiveGoodMen]

44. Blind loyalty to a party is how the repukes got to be the way they are!

[emilyg]

22. cindy does not speak for me anymore

[mzmolly]

8. And where will they "sit" when we don't have the votes to remove Bush?

Has anyone played this record through? Yeah, we can impeach now BEFORE Republicans are in a position they can't deny, or we can be patient and wait until we actually have a shot at removing this cabal with such an action.

Impeachment doesn't end the war unless we actually remove Bushco from office. In fact, it may be counter to ending the war, given Republicans are slowly coming around to our side. And the reports from Iraq are not peachy as of late so they can't pretend much longer.

Shit, we're just about to renegotiate a funding bill with a deadline, and slowly Republicans are coming on board NOW is not the time to take Iraq out of the news.

[Cameron27]

12. I have to agree with you,

we may have to realistically decide which is more important right now, impeachment or ending the war.

[mzmolly]

19. The timing could not be worse.

We're an inch away from getting enough R's on board to override a veto and attach a deadline to any future war funding.

Sorry, but I have to wonder if ending the war is still the goal?

[mmonk]

25. The chew gum theory?

[KoKo]

46. The "Wait for us .....we have a plan" or the "keep your powder dry" syndrome....

:eyes:

[KoKo]

47. Good! Citizens ACTIONS....IMPEACH THESE TREASONOUS BASTARDS!

[mmonk]

26. On the seat of justice and duty.

[mzmolly]

37. Hey maybe we can send a nice note to the troops to that effect?

Dear Soldier,

We started out wishing to end the war, and I know we were close and all, but we've decided to pursue a "feel good" direction instead.

Hope you understand?

Have a great day!

[mmonk]

39. Chew gum farce argument again?

So far, we have (since Jan.) escalated the war and added troops. Maybe its not us who want impeachment and defunding of the war that wants to prolong the end of the war.

[Virginia Dare]

33. Exactly..

as much as I'd love to see Bush and or Cheney impeached, to me it makes more practical sense to focus the work on getting a bipartisan veto proof coalition together to wrest control of the war from Bush's hands altogether. It's entirely possible to do this IMO.

[mzmolly]

36. Indeed it's possible, and it looks probable in the near future.

:hi:

[speakclearly]

42. We should not forget......

That Clinton's approval rating improved following the impeachment hearings. Is this the result we will see if we try to impeach Bush or Cheney? Keep in mind that the public did not approve of Clinton's behavior, but they just didn't believe he should be removed for it.

Do you really think that there will be that many Republicans that desert Bush in the Senate to remove him (they need 60 votes, which means 9 Republicans, to remove him)? This would not be a vote on the popularity of the President or a vote on leaving Iraq. That could be done with other types of legislation/resolution. This is trying to get Republicans to say that Bush committed crimes against the country and should be removed. If we initiate impeachment proceedings, we need to be reasonably assured we will win before we embark on such an ordeal. Failure to remove him might help the Republicans in the 2008 elections if the public views the action as a politically motivated partisan action or as simply Democratic retaliation for impeaching Clinton.

[KharmaTrain]

49. Why Think When It Feels Good

None of this is productive as the sit-ins these people need to do is on the Senate side of the House...where there are 17 votes preventing any real accountablility of this regime and real change. If they are against the war, they should be working their asses off right now to force 5 Repugnican Senators to allow Senator Reid to get up or down votes on funding the war or troop levels. They should be sitting in at MSNBC, CNN and Faux, demanding they stop enabling this regime and profiting from the division it creates. They should be working to bring civil suits and other outside actions that would compell the rats from this regime to expose more of the corruption that lies underneath.

Nothing Pelosi or Conyers or Sheehan or the Wizard of Oz can do to get convictions or pass legislation as long as you have goons like Lugar and Coleman and Alexander who say one thing in public and vote the other when McConnell and boooshie crack the whip. These people need to be shouted out for their blatant hypocrisy and shamed into doing what's best for the country or face the consequences next year.

Yes, impeachment doesn't end the war...as I've said before, after his acquital, Clinton launched the Kosovo operation. Ya think an impeachment in the House without a conviction in the Senate will bring the Iraq mess one day closer to an end? Think again. Boooshie may just be emboldened (as Darrell Hammond said after Clinton's acquittal "I'm bulletproof") to take a shot at going after Iran. What's he got to lose?

Meanwhile days, votes and emotions are wasted.

If these people truly want to end the Iraq fiasco, they need to be going after the Senate...that's where their best hopes stand.

[mmonk]

11. No screaming from me.

[leftchick]

15. Woo Hoo! I will meet you at Watt's office Cindy!!

:loveya:

[melody]

27. This is what the GOP means by "sitting back and watching them to destroy themselves"

We turn on our own.

This isn't a war for the best country to have -- it's a war for ANY country that even
vaguely resembles the USA. And right now, ADS and Cindy Sheehan are working against
the wrong people.

Why aren't they picketing the people who are loyal to Bush instead of someone like Conyers?
I really have to wonder where their funding is coming from. If this was any other situation,
I'd be with them in protest but obviously they don't understand the danger of the situation
and the necessity of what must be done, or they are more interested in some unseen/unknown
goal than shoring up the Democratic strategy.

[Usrename]

45. I think the subtext of the event might be just a little too subtle.

Conyers may welcome the protest, is the way I am reading it. He does know what the dangers are, including the dangers of confronting the monsters directly. But I really think that another obstacle is the Democratic party leadership. They are the ones that seem to be holding him back.

A big, loud, well publicized push from Cindy may be just what he's hoping for, even if he has to collect a little bit of the shrapnel himself, in order to move against the dicta of the party leaders.

[creeksneakers2]

52. I couldn't understand what they were saying about that.

At one point the letter says: "This time, we've not been invited. We plan to sit and read the Constitution aloud. If necessary, we will face arrest."

At another point the letter says: "Clearly at least half of Congressman Conyers wants to move on impeachment and wants public pressure to allow / compel him to do so."

I don't think the letter makes clear whether they think they will be welcome or not.

If the "Two John Conyers" caption is intended to imply that John Conyers is two faced or a flip flopper I disagree.

They quote Conyers: "There is a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice-President and other members of the Bush Administration violated a number of federal laws...."
ALSO:
"more investigatory authority is needed before recommendations can be made regarding specific Articles of Impeachment."

Then ADS contrasts: "As many of you also know, I have agreed with Speaker-to-be Pelosi that impeachment is off the table. Instead, we agree that oversight, accountability and checks and balances – which have been sorely lacking for the last six years – must occur."

In the first instance, Conyers says he needs to investigate before he can decide. In the second case Conyers says impeachment is off the table but he'll investigate. Off the table doesn't mean never do it. It means he isn't taking it up right now. Conyers wouldn't be able to put it on the table until he investigates, which he's working hard at doing. I don't see the conflict.

[KoKo]

48. And what do YOU believe the Democratic "Strategy" is ....at this point in time?

[melody]

53. To stay alive n/t

[EFerrari]

50. Aaaaahhh!!!!111

Thanks!

(Scream at me, I'm used to it. lol)