Seven Questions for Congressmembers Who Voted "Against" the Occupation Funding

Did you vote for funding on May 10 when it first came up? What changed?

Will the funding bill pass, killing thousands more Americans and Iraqis, without your vote?

Are you speaking out against this funding bill and did you urge everyone else in Congress to vote against it? If so, please publish your statement.

Are you holding a news conference to explain your decision to vote no?

Will you denounce the Democratic Party leadership that caved in to Bush and that is talking peace while making war?

Will you initiate investigation of Bush and Cheney, not just the underlings, as requested by the votes of dozens of town meetings and town councils, Democratic State and County Committees? Or do you advocate no investigation of Bush and Cheney?

The congressional leadership say that they do not support impeachment because it would distract attention from the goal of ending the war and would prolong the war. If ending the war is the one thing preventing impeachment, isn't that a good reason for Bush and Cheney to continue the war and even escalate the war?

Burlington, VT, attorney James Marc Leas asked these questions of Congressman Peter Welch. We are still waiting for an answer:

An Open Letter to Senator Patrick Leahy

Dear Senator Patrick Leahy,

Vermonters have reason to be dissatisfied with your response to our votes regarding impeachment.

First, the 37 Vermont towns, the Vermont Senate, the Vermont Democratic Party State Committee, and the Vermont Progressive Party State Committee did not all vote for Congress to initiate impeachment investigations of Bush and Cheney because we merely object to "policies" of this administration. As the Town Meeting resolutions point out, we voted because Bush and Cheney lied to get us into a war, tortured prisoners, and spied on Americans without a warrant in
violation of the constitution, U.S. and international law, and their oaths of office.

Second, we are floored to find that your response provides only political reasons for opposing initiating an impeachment investigation of Bush and Cheney. You say "An impeachment inquiry would be a highly divisive ordeal that would dominate Congress' time and attention. Impeachment proceedings would likely compromise the ability of Congress to address the many issues that face our nation during the remainder of this Administration. With a closely divided Congress, the outcome of an impeachment proceeding is uncertain and the problems facing our country are numerous, so Congress must set priorities to accomplish the most important tasks that the American people agree need to be accomplished."

We respectfully urge you to consider that basing justice on poliitical considerations is precisely what you rightly criticize Alberto Gonzales for doing. As a former prosecutor, you have clearly articulated the view that political considerations ought never be used to preclude arresting and prosecuting criminals. This is particularly the case when the criminals have awesome power and are bent on further crimes.

George Mason, a primary author of the Constitution, said that impeachment was the single most important part of the entire document. "Shall any man be above Justice? Above all shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice?", July 20, 1787.

Vermonters are shocked to receive a response from you placing political considerations above justice, our Constitution, and the rule of law, when it comes to the crimes of the criminals- in-chief, Bush and Cheney. As Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we urge you to immediately drop the political arguments and subpoena Bush and Cheney for questioning under oath for initiating and continuing the war of aggression based on lies, the torture, the spying on Americans without a warrant, and for politicizing justice.

Furthermore, the political expediency argument you give is flawed. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales demonstrated how a leading figure in this mafia administration discredits himself under such questioning. Several Republican Senators broke with Gonzales, and called on him to resign. Rather than being a source of partison division, the investigation of Gonzales brought senators together across party lines. Bush and Cheney are as likely to discredit themselves if they are questioned under oath.

We respectfully urge you to consider that if you continue to focus only on the underlings, like Gonzales, you establish Bush and Cheney as above the law. Holding Bush and Cheney immune from investigation gives them a congressional green light for further crimes.

Senator Leahy, your own oath of office requires you to defend our Constitution from this criminal duo, not to enable them. Political considerations do not trump that oath or the constitution.

Vigorously questioning Bush and Cheney under oath is mandated, and if the investigation supports the charges, then the House should vote to impeach and the Senate should vote to remove them from office. We urge you initiate investigation of Bush and Cheney in the Senate Judiciary Committee now.

James Marc Leas is a member of the National Lawyers Guild. Ellen David Friedman is Vice Chair of the Vermont Progressive Party.