Ray McGovern Asks Conyers To IMPEACH NOW & Avoid Attack On Iran (Detroit Free Press)

[kpete]

Impeach Bush now?
Congressional proceedings would help prevent another mistaken war
BY RAY McGOVERN • June 19, 2008


United States Rep. John Conyers, the Detroit Democrat who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, has a rendezvous with destiny. He is uniquely placed to thrust a rod through the wheels of a White House juggernaut to war with Iran by commencing impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush.

A move to impeach would bolster the resistance to Bush among our senior military leaders who know that attacking Iran at this time would be the strategic equivalent of the marches into Russia by Napoleon and Hitler.

Since Conyers took the helm of Judiciary in January 2007, the train of abuses and usurpations by the Bush administration has gotten even longer. But oddly, Conyers has lost his earlier appetite for impeachment and begun offering all manner of transparent excuses not to proceed. On July 23, 2007, for example, Conyers told Cindy Sheehan, the Rev. Lennox Yearwood and me that he would need 218 votes in the House, and vociferously claimed the votes were not there.

Well, they are now. Last week, 251 members of the House voted to refer to Conyers' committee the 35 Articles of Impeachment offered by U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. Conyers should take them up.

more at:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080619/OPINION02/806190359

[Echo In Light]

1. K&R

[midnight]

2. Impeachment with this buch is not easy .

The work has been done, the crimes have been number, the evidence has been collected. But still there our people to convince who will not entertain the idea of Impeachment I guess we have a new "reality" and it does not include the law.

[bdamomma]

3. kick

[SusanaMontana41]

4. Thanks again, Ray McGovern

for reminding us again what our country was and should be.

Whether or not an impeachment attempt is successful isn't the point. We must be on the record that we are against the Bush administration's crimes. To be silent about them is to approve of them.

[Peace Patriot]

5. Think back for a moment to when Rumsfeld resigned. It was 3 weeks or so after the

2006 elections. The Democrats won the House with about a 30-vote margin (probably a much bigger blowout, but with Diebold & co. we will never know), and achieved 50/50 in the Senate (only 1/3 of which was up for reelection). Polls showed that the Iraq War was THE most important issue to U.S. voters--70% wanted it ended. Pelosi immediately announced--the very next day, if I recall--apropos of nothing, that, "Impeachment is off the table" (I mean, WHAT table?). Rumsfeld resigned shortly afterward, and it seemed for all the world like the reason he resigned was the Congressional elections and the Democrats taking over the House and having a committee-chair majority in the Senate--and a mandate from the people to end the Iraq War. Although Pelosi had dashed hopes that a Democratic House would begin impeachment proceedings against Bush/Cheney for multiple "high crimes and misdemeanors," expectations were high that the House would do something about the war--such as deny Bush/Cheney any more funding for it.

One other thing that occurred in that whirlwind 3-week period between the 2006 elections and Rumsfeld's resignation: a 'Gulf of Tonkin' type incident occurred, with Iran catching a British boat in Iranian waters and arresting the British sailors. It is just the sort of thing that starts wars, and it looked very much like a deliberate provocation by the British. A U.S. attack on Iran seemed imminent. And, in the midst of this--just after the elections and taking the gavel in the House--Pelosi heads for the Middle East, visits Syria (wears a veil! walks in a marketplace), visits Israel (gives them multiple assurances), and--lo and behold--the Iranians GRACIOUSLY give the British sailors back, unharmed.

Then, within a few months, the new 'Democratic' Congress not only makes no move to end the Iraq War, they ESCALATE the war and lard Bush/Cheney with billions MORE of our non-existent tax dollars to keep killing Iraqis until they sign the oil contracts, and--we have now learned--until they sign agreements for permanent and very substantial U.S. bases in Iraq, AND for attacking other countries FROM Iraq, without Iraqi permission. (In short, no sovereignty for Iraq--continued occupation.) The new 'Democratic' Congress seemed to be saying, "Fuck you!" to the American people, just like the Bushites.

What are we to make of this sequence of events?

Rumsfeld resigns, with NO CHANGE OF POLICY IN IRAQ. Why did he resign?

Pelosi announces "impeachment is off the table"--an astonishing statement that violates the Constitution, and that makes no sense. Why did she say it? (WHAT "table"?)

And what was all that business with captured British sailors, and Pelosi hopping around the Middle East IN THE MIDST OF that most serious crisis with Iran?

Here's one theory: Pelosi (and others? some group of insiders, probably including military and intelligence people) decided that attacking Iran is insane, and set about preventing it. They made a deal with Bush/Cheney--probably some weeks before the elections, when it became evident that the Democrats were going to take over Congress, as follows: You don't attack Iran, and we won't impeach you--and maybe also--you will leave the White House peacefully, when the time comes, and we won't impeach you. Bush/Cheney agreed. Rumsfeld didn't--so he abruptly resigned. It was not about Iraq; it was all about Iran. (The whole point of the Project for a New American Century--the NeoCon/Rumsfeld plan--was to invade Iran and take over its oil fields.*)

And that brings us to today. Everything that has happened since has been a see-saw of calculations--Bush/Cheney judging whether Congress actually has the cajones to impeach and/or sufficient evidence to overcome Republicrat fascism (love of torture, war, gov't spying and repression)--can they still attack Iran with impunity?; and Pelosi and "white hat" cabal trying to judge at what point they need to seriously threaten impeachment--to prevent an attack on Iran, and to insure that Bush/Cheney will leave the White House in Jan. 09.

The main incidents of that Election 2006 period--"impeachment is off the table," Rumsfeld resigning (with no change of policy in Iraq), the British sailors/Iran incident (set up by Rumsfeld?) and Pelosi's trip to the Middle East --begin to make sense, if you posit this behind-the-scenes deal with Bush/Cheney.

-----------------------

Some thoughts on Rumsfeld:

*There may be other reasons why Rumsfeld resigned. The recent evidence of his complicity in torture may be one of them--or other heinous crimes that came to light behind the scenes. I've always thought he was the mastermind behind the Plame leak, and that the conflict between the CIA and Rumsfeld's "Office of Special Plans" had to do with a Rumsfeld attempt to PLANT nukes in Iraq, to be 'found' by the U.S. troops who were 'hunting' for them, after the invasion--and that Rumsfeld was the main perp not only as to treasonous outings of a whole network of counter-proliferation CIA agents/contacts, but also murders--including the murder of David Kelly in England--as Rumsfeld sought to silence and punish those whom he suspected of foiling that plan. The 'discovery' of WMDs in Iraq was to be the triumphant moment of the war, justifying the slaughter of over a million people and other heinous acts. Who foiled it? They weren't sure, so they outed everybody in the CIA counter-proliferation network (the Brewster-Jennings network), and murdered Kelly (who was "off the reservation" - already whistleblowing) because he knew about it and they couldn't control him.

I can't rule this out--that someone got the goods on Rumsfeld--on one or more of the many crimes he has committed--and pushed him out at that moment (with everything else being just a coincidence). But there is further evidence that Rumsfeld's main purpose has been conquest of Iran and getting control of their oil--and that, frustrated on this goal (by the impeachment threat against Bush/Cheney and the "deal"), he resigned. Rumsfeld has now become interested in South America, and I believe that he is orchestrating a Bushite war plan to split off the oil-rich provinces of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, into fascist mini-states in control of the oil. The Bushites have failed to topple Hugo Chavez, and can't win elections anywhere on the continent, as country after country has elected leftist governments, into social justice and self-determination, who are IN SYMPATHY with the Bolivarian Revolution, and are benefiting from it in many ways.

So, frustrated in his goal of grabbing Iran's oil for his puppetmasters in the oil industry, he is now bringing to fruition a long-planned Bushite scheme to instigate civil wars in these countries, and create chaos in the region, with the upshot being independent oil states, run by corrupt fascists, split off from the leftist national governments. There is considerable evidence that this plan is now IN MOTION, and could become a shooting war by mid-summer (with involvement of the newly reconstituted 4th Fleet--a nuclear fleet--which will be off the coast of Venezuela (and the Venezuelan oil state of Zulia) by July. In Bolivia, white separatists have already ILLEGALLY voted for secession in one gas/oil rich province--supported, funded, organized and probably armed by the Bush Junta, using our tax dollars (always). The fly in the ointment for the Bushites, in Bolivia, is that adjacent Paraguay just went leftist in its recent election, and the new leftist president wants the U.S. military out of his country. Both Bolivia and Paraguay are landlocked--so, how do the Bushites get U.S. troops into Bolivia to--as Rumsfeld urges in a Washington Post op-ed** of six months ago--take "swift action" in support of (Bushite) "friends and allies" in South America?

Read between the lines here:

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

Venezuela and Ecuador are Rumsfeld's main targets (biggest oil reserves in the western hemisphere, both members of OPEC, both with democratic, leftist governments). You may have noticed the intensified level of psyops about Chavez, recently, and also about Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador--with Bush lapdog Alvaro Uribe in Colombia charging them with "supporting terrorists." Uribe ($5.5 BILLION in U.S./Bush military aid) tried to start a war with Ecuador/Venezuela this March. That failed (due to Chavez's peacemaking efforts, according to the president of Brazil). Though that war plan failed, the tensions in the region, costs (of military preparedness--to Venezuela, Ecuador others), and destabilization factors can't hurt the main plan: secession of the oil states.

Speaking of costs of military preparedness, at a recent South American summit, where UNASUR was formed (foundation of a South American "common market"), Brazil proposed a South American common defense. Neither thing--a "common market" or a common defense--will include the U.S.

[DCKit]

6. The simplest explanation and all that.

Interesting and totally logical analysis. It's not as if they/we don't have a history of "nation building" in S.A..

The reverberations of Reagan's illegal funding to the terrorist regime of El Salvador is stronger than ever, as I'm told by friends recently returned from a visit. Gangs, crime, corruption, kidnappings, murders, drive-bys and extortion are rampant. Our bootprints are all over that one. Many who thought they would return to El Salvador in their retirement are having serious second thoughts. Looks like the current malAdministration has their sights set on every country with oil or a strategic position and, within twenty years, they should all be in exactly the same state.

Is it legal for a citizen to interfere in the affairs of other countries? Maybe it's time for Venezuela, Ecuador to ask Mr. Rumsfeld down for a chat. Since "special rendition" is now legal in the U.S., I would assume he hasn't got much of a choice but to comply.

Oh, and I also want to know what John Ashcroft's been up to since he left the DOJ. Idle hands....

[Peace Patriot]

7. You've got to wonder what Uribe, Rumsfeld & co. are trying to cover up in Colombia,

that may well have spilled over in murder and drug trafficking into neighboring Venezuela and Ecuador. Venezuela and Ecuador are serious about controlling illicit drug trafficking (bad drugs like cocaine--not simple coca leaves, which the indigenous chew for vitamins and proteins, and which is served as tea in many places), but Colombia is not serious about it. It president, Uribe (Bush's pal), was the go-to guy for the Medellin Cartel in his early career (now the go-to guy for the Bush Cartel). I was fascinated by the Interpol head's coverup of the 48,055 files in those FARC laptop computers that were "accessed, created, altered or deleted" while the laptops were in Colombia military hands, and the "confidential" report that Interpol passed to these fascist criminals. The "deletions" would be especially interesting.

Uribe is covering SOMETHING up with all his crap about Venezuela and Ecuador "supporting terrorists." He is under investigation himself, in Colombia, by courageous prosecutors and judges--along with some 50 of his cohorts (including family members), some already convicted and in jail--for their rightwing paramilitary death squad activities. And it was apparently known by all Latin American leaders--although it was of course black-holed in the 'news' here--that assassination plots against Hugo Chavez and others were being hatched in the Colombian military, circa 2006, backed by the Bushites. There was the strange Bushite/Chiquita deal (Chiquita paying death squads to eliminate their "labor problem," and the Bushites getting them out of a lawsuit with a...ahem...fine). And, finally--recently--Colombia did a sudden, middle of the night, extradition of several death squad convicts to the U.S. for prosecution by the Bush DoJ on drug trafficking. These were potential witnesses against Uribe (and...Bushites?). They can be more easily silenced here, where NO investigations of Uribe crime are taking place.

My guess: The Bush Junta has been involved in murders, major drug/weapons trafficking, assassination plots, Blackwater operations, civil war (secession) plots (to regain corporate predator control of the oil), dirty tricks of every kind, infiltration of South American military and intelligence services, spying with satellites, planes and on the ground, and massive funding, organizing--and, in some cases, arming--of fascist groups in a number of countries (including white racists in Bolivia). And if these countries can gain evidence of crimes, there are a number of them who would have no qualms about pursuing Bushites for extradition and prosecution--and that could include, also, past crimes.

Venezuela already has an extradition order (to the Bush Junta, alas--but maybe that will change) for the CIA operative who bombed a Cubana airliner some time ago, killing all aboard including a Venezuelan soccer team. El Salvador might be interested to extradite John Negroponte and others, if they elect the FMLN candidate as president next year (which it looks like they will do), for crimes against El Salvadorans in the 1980s. And Sandinista Daniel Ortega, recently elected president in Nicaragua, might be interested in some of the same Bushites/former Reaganites, who conducted an illegal war (forbidden by the U.S. Congress) against Nicaragua. Come to think of it, Guatemala might be interested as well. TWO HUNDRED THOUSANDS Mayan villagers were slaughtered in Guatemala with Reagan's direct complicity, in the 1980s. Guatemala now has a progressive, left-leaning government--its first--and they have had a harder time than any country recovering from Reaganite/Bushite atrocities. (Another case of drug-trafficking/murder gone wild in a society where fascist dictators, supported by the U.S. with guns, ammo and "training," destroyed civil society.)

It could get really interesting as the left sweeps election in Central America, as it has in South America. I have to laugh at DUers who, from time to time, mention Bushites fleeing "to Paraguay." Nu-uh, not any more. Paraguay just elected a leftist president, and just before that, Paraguay had voted down their U.S. military immunity and non-extradition laws, as conditions for joining new left-dominated entities, like Mercosur (S/A trade group) and the Bank of the South (Chavez-inspired bank for regional financing of development--as opposed to World Bank/IMF loan sharks, who have been pretty much evicted from South America). I have seen no confirmation of the Bush Cartel land purchase in Paraguay, but the new president wants the U.S. military out of his country, and it is no longer a safe haven for fascist war criminals.

Part of what the Bushites were up to, in Paraguay--I believe--is a plan to use the U.S. airbase and military maneuvers, in Paraguay, in support of the white separatists right next door in the gas/oil-rich eastern provinces of Bolivia. The election of leftist Fernando Lugo as president of Paraguay cuts off that strategic ground, for the Bushites' plan to instigate civil war in Bolivia, and provides some protection for Evo Morales, president of Bolivia (its first indigenous president) in his struggle with these rich landowners who want to secede and take the country's gas and oil reserves with them. Also, Argentina and Brazil have said they will not trade with any Bolivian separatist state. They are the major purchasers of Bolivian gas. So, where is this land-locked separatist state going to sell its gas? Solidarity among these countries is a very important factor in defeating Bushite/corporate predator dirty rotten schemes. There is an entirely news sense of self-determination and independence from the U.S. in South America, based on DEMOCRACY (the strongest possible basis for it).

Paraguay was one of the last rightwing hold-outs in South America. Lugo overturned 60 years of rightwing rule--as a consequence of the OAS, the Carter Center and other groups working hard, over the last decade, on TRANSPARENT elections in South America; also, Paraguay's need to integrate with the overwhelming majority of leftist-run economies was a factor, as well as Lugo's particular genius as a leader. That leaves only the corrupt "free traders" in Peru--who will likely be voted out in the next election cycle, and the fascist thugs, murderers and drug-traffickers running Colombia--the U.S./Bush's most favored nation in South America.

What have the Bushites been doing there? If their actions elsewhere are any guide--and if the "tip of the iceberg" evidence so far that is emerging in South America is pursued--it's a long list of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that South Americans will neither forget, nor grant immunity for, like our patsy Congress.

[DCKit]

8. Thanks for laying it all out again. People need to read this shit over and over and over....

Error: you've already recommended that thread.

[Raksha]

9. Very interesting timeline...thanks. n/t

[readmoreoften]

10. Okay. So Pelosi doesn't hold up her end of the bargain. No Iran and impeachment

and she exposes them. Seriously. Start impeachment and make a statement saying that you've changed your mind because you have credible evidence that they are trying to attack Iran. Then let them try. Is it "dishonest"? Yeah oh fucking well!

[HCE SuiGeneris]

11. Kick and recommend... for the OP, and for the survey from Peace Patriot

:thumbsup: