|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : North
America
Iraq war opponent Cindy Sheehan arrested at Democratic Congressmans
office
By Kate Randall
25 July 2007
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
Antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan and dozens of supporters were
arrested in the Rayburn House office building in Washington DC
on Monday following an hour-long meeting with Democratic Representative
John Conyers of Michigan.
Sheehan and others came to the offices to meet with Conyers,
chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to demand he initiate
impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush and Vice
President Dick Cheney. When Conyers indicated he would not begin
such proceedings and the protesters refused to leave, an estimated
47 were led away in plastic handcuffs by Capital Police.
Sheehan and a group of supporters set off July 13th on a march
from Atlanta, Georgia to press their demand for impeachment, arriving
in the capital on Monday. Hundreds of protesters lined the hallways
outside Conyers office while Sheehan and two others met with the
congressman and several staffers. The discussion was reportedly
heated and ended with Sheehan and others staging a sit-in in the
congressmans office.
According to one of the protesters, David Swanson, Conyers
first suggested that impeachment be discussed at a town hall meeting
in August. He then said he feared that if he were to move forward
on impeachment now, Fox News would go after him and accuse him
of being partisan.
In an article appearing in the American Chronicle on
Tuesday, The Conyers Legacy, Swanson writes, When
pressed [at the meeting] to act with the urgency appropriate to
saving lives, Conyers replied that our nation has always killed
people and that he wasnt going to play politics.
Conyers defended his position by saying that with only a one-seat
majority in the Senate, the Democrats do not have the necessary
votestwo-thirds of the Senateto convict on impeachment.
When questioned by the WSWS at a press conference July 9 at
the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People) conference in Detroit, Conyers maintained this same position,
responding irritably, It isnt just a matter of me
going in and impeaching. If I dont have 218 votes in the
House and I dont have 67 members in the Senate ... I cant
go back and impeach him if I dont have anybody behind me,
and I cant do it, and the elections next year. Do
you see the rationale?
Conyers attempts to rationalize his and other Democrats
refusal to push for impeachment are simply so many attempts to
cover up their own complicity in the policy of the Bush administration.
In 2005 and 2006, when the Republicans still controlled Congress,
Conyers held hearings that raised the issue of impeachment. Conyers
himself introduced legislation seeking an impeachment inquiry
into the launching and conduct of the war in Iraq. He also called
at the time for the creation of a special committee, modeled on
the Ervin Committee that investigated the crimes of Nixon, to
investigate the Bush administration.
Conyers has offered no serious explanation for why impeachment
was on the table in 2005 and 2006, when the Democrats were in
the minority, and not in 2007, when they are in the majority and
Conyers himself is the chairman of the main committee responsible
for initiating impeachment proceedings.
The reason for this shift lies in the fact that Conyers
calls for impeachment investigations then were intended merely
as a smokescreen at a time when he did not have the power associated
with having the congressional majority. Now that he is in such
a position, the Democratic Party has no intention of carrying
these threats out.
During the protest on Monday, Sheehan also formally announced
that she would run for the US Congress from California in 2008
against Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, because Pelosi has refused
to pursue impeachment. Sheehan had set a July 23 deadline for
Pelosi to go on record supporting it.
Pelosi has consistently declared that impeachment is off
the table. Pelosis press secretary released the following
statement in relation to Sheehans candidacy: The speaker
is focused on changing course in Iraq by bringing our troops home
safely and soon and refocusing our effort on protecting Americans
from terrorism.
In a blog entry, Sheehan said that in running against Pelosi,
I am committed to challenging a two-party system that has
kept us in a state of constant warfare for the last 60 years and
has become more and more beholden to special interests and has
forgotten the faces of the people whom it represents.
On May 26, Sheehan sent an open letter to Congress announcing
that she was leaving the Democratic Party following the Democrats
vote to authorize an additional $100 billion to fund the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan. This vote followed the 2006 mid-term
elections in which the Democrats gained the majority in both houses
of Congress, based on enormous popular opposition to the war.
Following her resignation, Cindy Sheehan faced the wrath of
the pro-Democratic Party liberal-left leadership of the antiwar
protest milieu.
She wrote at the time: I was the darling of the so-called
left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican
Party.... However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party
to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support
for my cause started to erode and the left started
labeling me with the same slurs the right used.
Sheehan has come under renewed attack on the pro-Democratic
Daily Kos web site for her decision to run as an independent
against Pelosi. In her diary entry dated July 12, she wrote that
she had been prevented from continuing her blog on the web site
because of her decision to oppose the Democrats.
Cindy Sheehans break with the Democratic Party, her call
for impeachment and her decision to run against Pelosi, are a
reflection of deep-seated hatred within the US population to the
policies of the Bush administration and that of the nominal oppositionthe
Democratic Party.
The outrage of millions of Americans over the war, however,
finds no expression in either party of the official, big business
political establishment. Despite the antiwar mandate of the 2006
mid-term elections, Congressional Democrats have continued to
fund the war in Iraq because they agree with the foundations on
which it was launchedto pursue and defend the geo-political
interests of US imperialism. Current approval ratings for Congress
are running at below 25 percent, in large measure due to the Democrats
refusal to oppose Bush.
The reaction of Conyers to Sheehans protestthe
rapidity with which the police were called to haul her off to
prisonunderscores the extreme hostility with which the Democratic
Party establishment, including its nominally left
flank, views any genuine expression of popular opposition to the
policies of the Bush administration.
The Bush administration has asserted what amounts to dictatorial
powers for the president. It has launched an illegal war against
Iraq on the basis of outright lies, has violated the law and the
constitution while spying on the American people, and has committed
innumerable other impeachable offenses, all the while refusing
to be accountable in any form for its actions.
However, a serious examination of the crimes of the Bush administration
would call attention to the Democratic Partys own complicity,
and would threaten to galvanize social forces that could not be
contained within the bankrupt two-party system. For this reason,
the Democratic Party is so reluctant to touch the issue.
See Also:
Democrats censure plananother
cynical diversion of fight against war and reaction
[24 July 2007]
US: Public television airs discussion
on presidential impeachment
[18 July 2007]
Iraq war opponent Cindy Sheehan
resigns from the Democratic Party
[30 May 2007]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |