And, yes, I DO take it personally: "If this is accurate, it's a lot worse than we thought, and if it isn't accurate, they're a lot more paranoid than we thought"

Friday, November 23, 2007

"If this is accurate, it's a lot worse than we thought, and if it isn't accurate, they're a lot more paranoid than we thought"

ralph nader talks about impeachment, and comments on massachusetts congressman john olver's response back in july when his constituents pressed him on the issue...

At about 10 am, the congressman came into the room with his aid, and Susie Patlove welcomed the congressman, laid out our agenda, and the congressman approved. We commenced with individual introductions and brief reports on the outcomes in each of our towns. Cong. Olver asked us to spare him a review of what he already knew and believed about the crimes of the Bush administration, and of the overwhelming majority of his district in favor of impeachment. When he aggrandized himself on his voting record, I took exception to 24 April 2007. When he asked what I was referring to, I challenged him to co-sponsor H. Res. 333; and he emphatically refused.

Nonetheless, we informed him of the good that would come out of an impeachment, and gave intelligent and caring answers to all of the objections he might harbor. We had present a young U.S. soldier, a veteran of both the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations, who directly asked the congressman what could we do to move him towards co-signing H. Res. 333. The congressman did not answer that direct question.

He is deeply concerned whether we will actually have an election in Nov. '08, as he believes this administration will likely strike Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, and cancel the '08 elections. He sees ending the war as his primary goal, and he believes the brilliant Nancy Pelosi has a strategy more potent than impeachment. He thinks impeachment is a futile waste of legislative energy, will be harmful of democratic '08 victories, and further tighten the "gridlock" he has complained of for the past few decades.

reading this, of course, leads directly to the thought, "holy shit, is that true?" and, if it is, it would go a long way toward explaining the extreme recalcitrance of congress when faced with h.res. 333...