Conyers to lay it down in writing

This will be interesting to read. Apparently, Obama called up Rep. Conyers to complain that Conyers was "demeaning" Obama by being critical of him. Conyers replied:

Conyers, the second-longest-serving member of the House, said, "[Obama] called me and told me that he heard that I was demeaning him and I had to explain to him that it wasn't anything personal, it was an honest difference on the issues. And he said, `Well, let's talk about it.'"

Sitting in the Judiciary Committee's conference room two days after Obama delivered his speech on Afghanistan, the 23-term lawmaker said he wasn't in the mood to "chat."

Obama's move to send in 30,000 troops to Afghanistan by the summer of 2010 has clearly disappointed Conyers.

He said he intends to press his case in writing soon.

"I want something so serious that he has to respond in writing, like I am responding in writing to him," he said.

"Calling in generals and admirals to discuss troop strength is like me taking my youngest to McDonald's to ask if he likes french fries," Conyers said.

Many on the left have argued that military leaders routinely respond to crises by calling for more troops.

"I've been saying I don't agree with him on Afghanistan, I think he screwed up on healthcare reform, on Guantánamo and kicking Greg off," Conyers said, referring to the departure of former White House counsel Greg Craig.

Craig was a leading proponent in the White House of closing the terrorist detention center at Guantánamo Bay and releasing photos of detainees undergoing torture. Closing the military prison has proven to be politically difficult, and Obama reversed field on the photos, opting not to make them publicly available.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

The liberal Conyers has been an outspoken proponent of a single-payer healthcare system and a critic of U.S. involvement in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

He has also been at odds with White House policy on extending expiring  provisions of the Patriot Act, crafting legislation that is to the left of the Senate's version.

There might be another division coming too, over what to do with borrowed TARP funds that are being returned to pay off the dept. The banks and firms like GS are in much better shape now, having amassed funds from the Gov't at low rates and profitably trading securities. The Republicans want to return the dept to deal with the over 12 trillion deficit, and Democrats want to use the money for a jobs program.


Obama faces mounting pressures from the nation's yawning $12 trillion debt burden and its growing ranks of jobless Americans. Obama has set out to tackle both concerns...

It would seem likely that Obama will try and cut it down the middle, spending while saving, figuring out some proposal along the lines with what he usually proposes, like escalating troops in Afghanistan while simultaneously talking about a pullout date.


On that latter point, you had to be in awe of the political machinery in the WH that takes the research & polling pulse to figure out how to best frame the least terrible of miserable alternatives that the military handed Obama to decide upon.

And yet, "Obama's Plan for Afghanistan Finds Bipartisan Support: Overall, 51% of Americans support the new policy, while 40% are opposed"wrote Gallup:

All in all, slightly more than half of Americans support Obama's new policy in Afghanistan, while 4 out of 10 oppose it. The president at the moment enjoys an unusual situation in which a majority of both Democrats and Republicans favor his newly announced strategy. This level of bipartisan support is counterbalanced to a degree, however, by the fact that less than half of independents support the plan.

Well less than half of Democrats agree either with the level of new troops the U.S. is sending or with the specifics of the new timetable. Similarly, less than half of Republicans agree with either of these two components, and almost three out of four Republicans disagree with the concept of setting a timetable at this point.

Thus, partisan reactions to the specific components of the new plan do not explain the majority support for the plan among both Republicans and Democrats.

It may be that while Democrats disagree with the specifics of the timetable as announced, they approve of the idea of having any timetable included. And it may be that while Republicans strongly disagree with the having any timetable included, they approve of the general idea of an increase of troop levels.

Its a terrible policy, but you have to grant the political expertise a success at weaving a short-term majority together for the policy (not electorally):

"How much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan - less than a year, one to two years, two to five years, five to ten years, or as long as it takes?"

27% Less than 1 year
22% 1 to 2 years
14% 2 to 5 years
1% 5 to 10 years
31% As long as it takes

It's amazing that 31% would be willing to stay in Afghanistan for decades to come, no matter what the cost. The vast majority want this over asap.

There's more...

Yes States Can!

House HELP Passes Amendment to Allow State Single-Payer Experimentation

America's registered nurses and other guaranteed healthcare activists are hailing the vote last night by House Education and Labor Committee to amend the national healthcare reform bill and give individual states the freedom to adopt single-payer, Medicare-for-All style reforms.

There's more...

Obama must appoint a Special Prosecutor

When is President Obama going to live up to his statement that "no one is above the law".  Refusing to appoint a Special Prosecutor is very close to protecting Bush and Cheney.

And critics of the Bush administration say a truth commission inquiry would probably be a half-measure, that immunity would shoeld lawbreakers.

"This is not about mistakes. This is about fundamental lawbreaking, about the disposal of the Constitution, and about the end of treaties," Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said in a radio interview earlier this month.

Now, a US Congressman is calling for an investigation of the Seymour Hersch allegations that former Vice President Cheney controlled a secret US Military squad that carried out assassinations of foreigners. This against US Law and President Ford's executive order prohibiting any US citizen from doing so. This Must Be Investigated by a Special Prosecutor.

How far outside US law did Cheney go?

Did Cheney use the assassination squad inside the United States?

There's more...

Rep. Nadler, what are you waiting for?

Let's look at some the events of the last few days, to see what they have in common:

1) Dennis Kucinich introduced a single new article of impeachment against the president, for his and his administration's lying us into a disastrous and illegal war;

2) Karl Rove not only failed to appear before the HJC on Thursday after being subpoenaed, but he skipped the country without notifying Congress(!);

3) Nancy Pelosi, in her signature style (vague, ambiguous, and vague again), made a statement which seemed to leave the door open for impeachment hearings (back on the table?);

4) I, Adam Sullivan, filed well in excess of the number of required petition signatures to gain ballot access for the Democratic primary here in NYC, where I am challenging Jerrold Nadler for his seat representing New York's Eighth Congressional District in the House.

From my perspective, this is a strong list of reasons for Mr. Nadler--who chairs the Subcommittee of the Judiciary on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties--to change his position on seeking to initiate impeachment hearings.

There's more...

Impeachment: A Primer

I am not going to spend a lot of time "writing" my position. To me, this is a crystal clear position based on facts and accounts from various trustworthy people and journalist.

Please watch the following videos and decide for yourself.  If you decide we need to push for impeachment then follow my directions below and push hard. Share it with your friends and stay on it. My position is that at the very least, Conyers and Pelosi should do exploratory hearings and hear out any facts. If from those meetings they decide not to pursue further impeachment proceedings, then I will be satisfied - not happy - but satisfied. It is a constitutional duty of Congress to follow up with due diligence.

Paul O'Neill: Paul went on the record with CBS' 60 Minutes stating that the Iraq War was being planned since day 10 of the administration.


Downing Street Memos: Bush works with Blair to make up the rational behind the Iraq War. If you are in a rush, please start watching at minute 6:00 to the end. It is shocking that Bush and Cheney have not been brought up on charges of treason. You can read more about the Downing Street Memos by visiting http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/



Lies, lies, and more lies


Valerie Plame: Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney were implicated and the issues was not investigated as well as it should have and at the end Bush pardons Scooter Libby's sentence.


There are many more points one could make.

  • Missing White House E-Mails
  • Attorney's Firings
  • Unanswered Subpoenas

    All this makes me believe that maybe Democrats and Republicans are in cahoots. It is obvious that hearings should be held but nothing has really happened. Why? This is where you/we come in. Please and don't give up on our constitution!


    Impeachment Primer

    1. Sign up and donate a few dollars to Congressman Wexler at http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com

    2. Visit http://www.speaker.gov and tell Nancy Pelosi to hold initial hearings. I tend to tell her that I will keep donating to her competition - Cindy Sheehan.

    3. Visit John Conyers (D-MI) and ask him to follow up on impeachment motions that was tabled in December/January.

    4. Forward to your friends and tell them to follow up and act on this problem.

    5. Call everyone above once a week and write an email once a week.

    6. Call in to right-wing talk shows and cause chaos. Be careful, because their screener will sniff you out before you make it on air. The trick is to think of something positive to tell the screener regarding whatever topic is being covered and then once you talk to the host, change the subject quickly before they hang up on you. Make it hard for them to do their jobs. Key shows are: Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, and Mark Levin.

    7. Write to President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. What ever you write will be part of the historical record for the President. I want everyone that visits his archives (what ever he doesn't delete or destroy), to see how the American public saw through his lies.

    A Recomment would be appreciated if you think it is worth reading.

    Thank you and stay strong and positive!

    There's more...

  • Diaries

    Advertise Blogads