You are herecontent / Party Leaders Crack Down on Rep. Sherman for Reporting Threat of Martial Law
Party Leaders Crack Down on Rep. Sherman for Reporting Threat of Martial Law
By David Swanson
Congressman Brad Sherman said on the floor of the House that a few Congress members had been told there would be martial law in America if they did not pass Paulson's Plunder. Here's video.
Sherman has not retracted that statement. He has not suggested that the Congress members who had told him that didn't really tell him that, or weren't honest, or didn't take it seriously, or that it didn't influence their votes. But he has put out a statement to the media, clearly at the instruction of the leaders of his party, attempting to backpedal. Here's his new statement which begins by quoting his floor comments:
On Thursday, October 2nd, I stated on the floor of the House of Representatives that, “The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. That atmosphere is not justified. Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday, that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day and a couple of thousand the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no. That’s what I call fear mongering, unjustified, proven wrong.”
There has been significant speculation in the blogoshere and other places regarding this statement.
Speaking during the second House debate on the bailout bill, I was describing what I regarded as the increasingly unbelievable things that had been said while the House considered the bailout package – extreme things put forward as reasons why Congress had to pass that bill right away. I urged my colleagues not to take the extreme statements seriously and urged them to defeat the bill. It should be clear from the context of my speech that I did not believe that martial law would be declared under any circumstances and I did not think that such absurd and outlandish comments should cause members to vote for the bill.
I also want to stress that I have no reason to think that any of the leaders in Congress who were involved in negotiating with the Bush Administration regarding the bailout bill ever mentioned the possibility of martial law -- again, that was just an example of extreme and deliberately hyperbolic comments being passed around by members not directly involved in the negotiations.
It's anyone's guess whether Sherman is claiming that the members who said they were threatened were being deliberately hyperbolic or the unnamed members of the administration or the military who threatened them were being deliberately hyperbolic.
Sherman's press guy sent me his new statement and wrote: "If you have any questions regarding this statement on his Martial Law comment, please do not hesitate to contact me."
So, I contacted him by immediately replying thus:
Thanks.
Yes, I have a couple of questions.
Are you blaming the congress members who said they were threatened with martial law for speaking about it, or are you suggesting they spoke falsely?
Or are you claiming they spoke truthfully but did not take the threat seriously?
Have any of the members involved named anyone who supposedly made the threat?
David
I have yet to receive any response.
- Login to post comments
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
The excuses that Sherman made ring very hollow. His statement on the house floor certainly did not seem like someone shooting off at the mouth. If Sherman knew Martial law would not be declared why did he feel it was significant enough to mention. He would have to be dangerously incompitant to think that saying members of congress are being threatned with martial law before a vote that would nationalize the debt of the banking industry would not create a huge stir. chris dorsey
and, you want to know something else? The DINOCRATS who are the signatories to HR-1955 / SB-1959, fear WE THE PEOPLE so much that they are chomping at the bit to get MARTIAL LAW declared, to protect them from REPRISALS once the country fully descends into TOTAL FINANCIAL RUIN.
I WILL TAKE IT EVEN FURTHER, IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME IF BARACK OBOMBYA ISN'T THE FUCKER WHO DECLARES MARTIAL LAW, IF THE BUSH SON OF A BITCH DOES NOT.
I don't recall where, but I know I read this follow-up statement of Sherman's some time ago - probably about a week after the votes on the Bailout. So this is not exactly new - any party pressure exerted on Sherman would have come while the Congress was still in session, I imagine.
Regardless, I want to applaud and thank Brad Sherman for his honesty throughout the debate. Sherman and Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich and a small group of other undeterred truthtellers in Congress made a HUGE difference to this nation by standing their ground against party leadership dictates on the Bailout Bill, as I hope they will continue to do. Without the first (extremely heartening) House defeat, the Senate version that included a provision (Section 102) allowing direct purchases of banking stock may not have been included in the final product, and we'd be stuck with only Paulson's original toxic asset purchase program.
Of course, the whole deal seemed designed mainly to get Congress past the elections, regardless of its effect on our nation's future or our economy. In effect, it's a "soft landing" deal for Wall Street, which will be safely "rescued" by the time the real pain starts being felt on Main Street next year. Only immediate, and wise, action by Congress now can forestall a severe decline or create a similar soft landing for the rest of us on Main Street - but since we, the people, don't fill up campaign coffers, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid - who run Congress at the pleasure of the highest campaign donors - certainly won't be focused on us in November or December.
The only chance left for representative democracy in America at the federal level comes from people like Sherman and Kaptur who refuse on principle to put party politics and power ahead of people and doing what's right. We need them, and we need them desperately. They, and they alone, gave the American people and the public interest a voice in this debate. Next time we need the American people to have a vote as well - a vote that respects democratic process in Congress and that serves us, rather than the private-interest-serving political party hierarchy most of their Congressional colleagues still bow down to.
Aren't the powers that spread fear and threaten, the most fearful and the most threatenend? What comes first? Feeling fear, then passing it on. Those who pass it are really the ones with the most fear and the least power.
We're sick of negative motivation and see it for what it is.... and who they are that use it. Becoming more transparent every day.
I also need to see a little more of this so called people before party politics. The Kucinich's and the Sherman's give plausable deniability to the Dem party which carries out the will of the mlti nationals and the millitarry industrial complex. They need to completely out their leadership or stop using the excuse that they are always on the short end of the stick on votes. The US congress is criminally complicit in the crimes including war crimes of the executive,chris dorsey