(fwd) Talk is cheap, Rep. Paul

[Guest guest]

Posted by: " NT " nancyt1210 nancyt1210 Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:52 am

(PST) After reading this article, I encourage you to write Rep. Paul - and ask

him

why he has not introduced articles of impeachment, or at least signed onto

Conyer's bill for a simple bipartisan investigation!!

 

rep.paul

 

 

Republican Congressman Says Bush Should Be Removed from Office

 

By David Swanson - July 12, 2006

 

A radio show reported yesterday that Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul

said the following:

 

" I would have trouble arguing that he's been a Constitutional President,

and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these

people should be removed from office. "

 

And this: " Congress has generously ignored the Constitution while the

President flaunts it, the courts have ignored it and they get in the

business of legislating so there's no respect for the rule of law. "

 

And this: " When the President signs all these bills and then adds statements

after saying I have no intention of following it - he's in a way signing it and

vetoing - so in his mind he's vetoing a lot of bills, in our mind under the rule

of law he hasn't vetoed a thing. "

 

And Paul said the United States had entered a period of " soft fascism. "

 

The report of these statements might surprise some people, especially people who

rely on the corporate media for their news, but it fits with previous remarks by

Congressman Paul, including these wonderful speeches recently made on the floor

of the House of Representatives by Rep. Paul and Rep. Walter Jones, a Republican

from North Carolina:

 

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/12673

 

The report also comes from a media outlet that has repeatedly interviewed

Paul, and they've posted a link to the audio of the interview here, although

you have to join the site to hear it:

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/100706impeachbush.htm

 

 

Rather than do that, I phoned Congressman Paul's communications director

in Washington this morning. More than confirming this report, I wanted to

ask Rep. Paul why he would declare that the President should be removed

from office, yet fail to introduce an article of impeachment or even sign onto

Congressman John Conyers' (D., Mich.) bill, H. Res. 635, to create a

preliminary investigation. I also thought I wouldn't mind knowing why Paul

used the plural: " …these people should be removed from office. " Whom

would he include along with Bush? Cheney? Rumsfeld? Rice?

 

Paul did give something of an answer in the interview to why he would not

act on his conviction that impeachment was merited, namely he asserted,

without any evidence, that the Democrats, if they won a majority, would

probably try to impeach Bush for the wrong reasons: politics and revenge.

There are a couple of problems with this excuse of Paul's for his inaction:

 

1. Out here beyond the Beltway it's progressives who couldn't stand Clinton

and have no use for defending him and spend their time these days attacking

his wife who are pushing impeachment.

 

2. The Democrats, even if they have a majority, will have to be dragged kicking

and screaming to attempt impeachment, having – as they do – significantly less

in the way of spine than Congressman Paul, who is probably failing to realize

entirely how timid and useless they are.

 

3. If a president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors – as we all know

this one has – then whether some Members of Congress might support impeachment

for impure reasons can in no way justify a failure to impeach.

In persuading nonprofit groups to work for impeachment it is often necessary to

explain to them that supporting such action by Congress is not partisan just

because the President belongs to a party. Is it really necessary to explain to

Congressman Paul that impeachment is not partisan just because Congress Members

belong to parties? This is about defending the Constitution, and either you obey

your oath to do so or you violate it.

 

Millions of U.S. citizens, like Paul, support impeachment and removal from

office. And we can rightly be challenged by anyone as to whether we are

sacrificing enough to make it happen: are we working every moment of the day

that we can to drag a few more Congress Members onto H Res 635? Are we passing

resolutions in every town and city and state possible? Are we straining enough

to try to shove the peace movement and the labor movement or other potentially

helpful organizations onto the impeachment agenda?

Are we protesting? Going to jail? Fasting? Do we wear our Impeach Bush and

Cheney shirts every day?

 

Just as we can very reasonably be asked such questions, Rep. Paul can be

asked this one: Why have you not introduced articles of impeachment, or at

least signed onto Conyers' bill for a simple bipartisan investigation?

 

How does Congressman Paul think history will look on one of the 435 people

in a position to act who declared action needed and then sat down and did

nothing, who actually summoned the courage to admit publicly that he recognized

the slide to fascism, but stood aside and wished the country well as it slid

down the slope?

Will history smile on such behavior?

 

Were Paul to put his signature where his mouth is, he would become an

instant hero, the chances of impeachment would dramatically increase, and

the chances of impeachment being dominated entirely by partisanship would

be eliminated. And Paul would catch a ton of flack from partisans, btu

they'd be partisan Republicans, and I think he could handle it.

 

But I digress.

 

So, anyway, I phoned Paul's communications guy, whom I'd never spoken to

before, Jeff Deist. But Deist turned out to be, like most Hill staffers, more

cautious than his boss. Deist did not deny what Paul had said on the radio, but

changed the topic to telling me what Deist believed.

 

For those who care, Deist believes that the issue that matters is Congress's

failure to insist on its power to declare war. " Bush is not really the culprit,

the blame is with Congress, " Deist said, complaining of " Congress's cowardice. "

 

I asked Deist if I could check with the Congressman on whether he agreed,

and Deist said I could do so by sending a detailed request, explanation of

the article I was writing, etc., to:

rep.paul

 

 

While Deist made it very clear through his defensiveness and hostility that

I'd never get an interview on this topic, I'm not sure it wouldn't have an

impact if, say, 10,000 people sent an Email to that address thanking Paul for

his statements and asking him to do more than talk. Can you do that please?

 

We thank you, Congressman, but we can all talk, and talk is cheap.