Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has introduced articles
of impeachment
against George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice. In doing
so, she alone has spoken for the 51 percent of Americans who Newsweek
says want Bush impeached. A considerably higher percentage of Americans
would, if asked, almost certainly acknowledge that the abuses with
which McKinney charges Bush et al. have, in fact, been committed
by them and are impeachable offenses. That is to say, there are
those who recognize the grounds for impeachment but don't want to
see them pursued. There are even those who want impeachment pursued
but wish it were not being pursued by McKinney.
McKinney charges that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld manipulated
intelligence and lied to justify war, and that Bush has engaged
in illegal domestic spying. The former charge has been extremely
well documented,
and the latter proudly confessed to. The former charge was central
to the concern of those who included impeachment in the U.S. Constitution.
The latter charge is one of openly violating a law that was established
in response to President Richard Nixon's impeachable offenses.
So, why aren't all impeachment advocates thrilled?
Because McKinney's courage and leadership are overpowered, in their
minds, by their own fears. They're afraid that impeachment will
be painted as radical and that other people less insightful than
themselves will, as a result, oppose it. They fail to recognize
that silence is more damaging to the cause of justice than are attacks
by its opponents, and that other Americans are just as smart (although
just as scared) as they are. McKinney has put impeachment where
Speaker-Designate Nancy Pelosi said it could not go: on the table.
This can only benefit the cause of impeachment.
The media attacks on McKinney have begun, and rather
than joining in them by condemning her for bravely doing what we
know needed to be done, we should be defending her with a barrage
of letters to editors and phone calls to radio shows. And we should
be urging every member of Congress to join
her. Associated Press reporter Ben Evans has published a vicious
attack on McKinney in which he alleges that
"The legislation has no chance of passing and
serves as a symbolic parting shot."
But in which Evans does not comment on public support
for the action or the merits of the case. Instead, he suggests that
McKinney has launched an attack directed as much at Pelosi as at
Bush. But McKinney said nothing about Pelosi and accused Bush of
the highest possible crime. Where are Evans' priorities?
Evans does not even say what the charges against Bush
are. Rather he launches into an attack on McKinney:
"McKinney, a Democrat who drew national headlines
in March when she struck a Capitol police officer, has long insisted
that Bush was never legitimately elected. In introducing her legislation
in the final hours of the current Congress, she said Bush had
violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution and the
nation's laws."
And she said nothing of the legitimacy of his election.
McKinney was tried and convicted in the press, and was never indicted.
Evans later writes:
"McKinney … has increasingly embraced
her image as a controversial figure."
How has she done that? By acting on behalf of a majority
of Americans using a tool that appears centrally and in six places
in our Constitution, a tool that has been vital to U.S. and British
democracy for 700 years?
Evans isn't done yet:
"She has hosted numerous panels on Sept. 11
conspiracy theories…"
McKinney hosted a day-long briefing that included
academics, authors, and former government and intelligence professionals,
some of whom questioned the work of the 9-11 Commission, but none
of whom presented theories.
"…and suggested that Bush had prior knowledge
of the terrorist attacks but kept quiet about it to allow friends
to profit from the aftermath."
McKinney
asked about the reports that over a dozen foreign intelligence agencies
had provided early warnings. She did not say that Bush kept it quiet
to allow friends to profit. She asked whether his associates were
making a profit, as of course many of them are through the "war
on terror." Greg Palast has produced a film called "American
Blackout," which addresses the media's misquoting and misrepresenting
of Congresswoman McKinney on this issue.
Evans keeps going:
"She introduced legislation to establish a
permanent collection of rapper Tupac Shakur's recordings at the
National Archives and calling for a federal investigation into
his killing."
The Tupac Amaru Shakur Records Act did not establish
a permanent collection of his music at the Archives or create an
investigation, but required the release of all government records
relating to his life and death at federal, state, and local levels.
Evans persists:
"But it was her scuffle with a Capitol police
officer that drew the most attention. McKinney struck the officer
when he tried to stop her from entering a congressional office
building. The officer did not recognize McKinney, who was not
wearing her member lapel pin."
A Grand Jury heard these charges and dismissed them.
Evans says as much, but twists this fact with the
words that follow:
"A grand jury in Washington declined to indict
McKinney over the clash, but she eventually apologized before
the House."
Now, what does any of that have to do with whether
our President used fraud to take us into the current war? Nothing,
of course. But in the U.S. corporate media, it is only those who
supported the war who have the right to speak against it. If you
opposed the war from the start, if you saw through the lies while
it still mattered, you are disqualified now from commenting further.
Matthew Daly, another Associated Press reporter, wrote
an article on Friday that contrasted with the one by Evans. The
headline was "Smith says Iraq war may be 'criminal'".
And the article began:
"Republican Sen. Gordon Smith, who voted in
favor of the Iraq war and has supported it ever since, now says
the current U.S. war effort is 'absurd' and 'may even be criminal.'"
Of course, it is. But Smith called it such in the
vaguest of terms. McKinney laid out the evidence in an Article of
Impeachment. Look at the treatment the AP gave Smith:
"In a major speech on the Senate floor, the
Oregon senator called for rapid pullouts of U.S. troops from Iraq
and said he would have never voted for the conflict if he had
known the intelligence that President Bush gave the American people
was inaccurate."
Why was his speech "major"? Because he supported
a criminal war on the basis of evidence that millions of us and
half the Democrats in Congress saw through at the time.
The article went on to quote Smith on his reasons
for charging that the war is criminal, but added nothing about his
embracing controversy, splitting with the Republican party, or having
done anything unpopular in the past:
"Citing the hundreds of billions of dollars
spent and the nearly 3,000 American deaths, Smith said, 'I for
one am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy
that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same
way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd.
It may even be criminal. So either we clear and hold and build
or let's go home.'"
This treatment continued for seven more paragraphs.
Congresswoman McKinney is not only a more intelligent
and responsible public servant than Senator Smith, but she is also
someone who foresaw the current attacks on her record and forged
ahead anyway. She understands her role as public servant to involve
serving the public. And, in the long run, she is serving the interests
of the Democratic Party, whether everyone in that party grasps the
point or not. She's stuck her neck out for us, for our democracy,
for the rule of law under our Constitution. Now, we need to support
her.
Sunday, December 10th, was Human Rights Day, the 58th
anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, a document that lays out, in 30 short articles, rights that
every human should have protected. Eleven out of the 30 have clearly
been violated in the United States by President Bush and his administration,
rights including:
Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture
or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition
everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
arrest, detention or exile.
Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence….
David Swanson, co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org
coalition, works for ImpeachPAC.org,
which is funding pro-impeachment candidates. Each one has committed
to making the introduction of articles of impeachment his or her
first act in office. Swanson also works for MyDem.org,
which is giving people tools to help make sure their votes are counted.
A former newspaper reporter, he was the press secretary for Dennis
Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign.
Copyright 2006 David Swanson |