[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Doing Impeachment Right Success in impeachment should include conviction by the Senate -- requiring the concurrence of two thirds of that body. That means you will need 16 Republicans, assuming the entire Democratic caucus is united, including Joe Lieberman. However good you think your case for impeachment, finding enough votes for conviction will be a daunting challenge. It is certainly true that "fighting the good fight" -- even if it's a losing battle -- is occasionally appropriate. Remember the Alamo. Specifically, remember that the sacrifice at the Alamo served the larger strategic purpose of delaying Santa Anna. More than a vain and feckless sacrifice of lives, it advanced the larger struggle for the independence of Texas. Short of conviction by the Senate, any effort to impeach the President should likewise advance larger purposes, especially since such conviction is unlikely. There are certainly plenty of larger purposes to be served by an impeachment of the President. Presenting a strong case -- by which I mean a compelling case -- might well serve to educate a poorly informed public about the extraordinary level of misfeasance and malfeasance on the part of the administration. It would also have the political benefit -- again, assuming the case is sufficiently compelling -- of embarrassing those Republican holdouts who wouldn't convict the President no matter what evidence was presented against him. A less than compelling case for impeachment could easily backfire on the Democrats. It could make them appear petty and vindictive. In fact, that was precisely the result of the impeachment of President Clinton. The Republicans wound up losing seats in the 1998 midterms -- the first time an opposition party lost seats in the sixth year of a two term President since 1822. The principles of our opposition to impeaching President Clinton are as applicable to this President. Impeachment is an extraordinary remedy. It is a legal coup d'etat, and should not be contemplated even in the presence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that are no more that facially sufficient to support impeachment. Or stated differently, your case for impeachment should be more than a "trumped up charge" -- as was the case in the impeachments of both President Clinton, and Andrew Johnson before him. Impeachment should be reserved for Presidential misconduct so severe that it threatens the constitution itself. That is what we said in 1998, and we ought to stand by that principle now. To be sure, the apparent case against the current President is stronger than the one against President Clinton. His theory of the "unitary executive" has clearly sought to fundamentally alter the balance of power between the legislature and the executive. On the other hand, altering the balance of power between legislature and executive isn't particularly new. That balance has ebbed and flowed over the past 217 years, with the US government enjoying -- or being cursed with, depending on your sensibilities -- a number of "strong" executives. Jackson was derided as "King Andrew The First." Lincoln was called a dictator. FDR was "that man in the White House." The term "imperial presidency" emerged during the Nixon administration. Only Nixon came out on the short end of a confrontation with Congress over his perogatives as President. That's because Nixon, unlike many previous "expansionist" presidents, had an opposition party to deal with. In every case mentioned above, the President expanded his power with the consent -- or at least the absence of opposition -- of the legislature. Dubya has been no different. If he has asserted his "inherent authority" to disregard acts of Congress, it is largely because a Republican Congress has allowed him to do so. That just changed. With the opposition party in control of the legislature, the Bush administration can now be challenged in a way that it never was with a Republican Congress. The case of Nixon is illustrative. Much of Nixon's infamous paranoia was aggravated by the presence of a Democratic Congress and a much more aggressive media. Had Nixon enjoyed a Republican Congress, and a suitably housebroken media, he would almost certainly have never come to grief. If Bush is worse than Nixon -- and I think he fairly qualifies -- that fact isn't yet apparent to a sufficient number of Americans. Impeachment ought to be like war, undertaken only with a broad national consensus that it is necessary. Like misbegotten wars, impeachment with a bare majority supporting it can turn against its proponents. Just look at the falling stock of the neocons, and the Republican Party in general as a result of the Iraq debacle. For that matter, look at the damage done to the Republican cause as a result of the misbegotten Clinton witch hunt. In other words, even if sufficient grounds exist to impeach the President, the political environment is not yet ripe for such an action. Democrats do not enjoy a mandate to impeach the President. They only enjoy a mandate to "change direction." Overreaching early could have the same bad consequences as Dubya's own overreaching on say, Social Security privatization, which he announced as his "mandate" following his re-election, having specifically denied any such plans two months earlier. So if you really think impeachment is necessary, you still have some groundwork to do. Don't worry, it's not difficult, and if I read this administration correctly, they will help you out. Start with your mandate. The leading salient issue for voters was not Iraq, not "terror," and not the economy. It was corruption. Perfect. Investigating corruption in this administration presents a "target rich" environment. One hardly knows where to begin. I suggest that the investigation start with "war profiteering." Exactly how much "reconstruction" have our tax dollars bought in Iraq. More to the point, how have administration cronies at Haliburton profitted -- for delivering very little. Did Bush lie his way into a war of choice? Exposing the corruption in the prosecution of that war establishes a motive. As long as the lie was to "defend America," it won't get much traction. If, on the other hand, the lie was motivated -- even in part -- to create to a money making opportunity, you will have a much easier time generating an appropriate level of outrage. From this beginning, it is much easier to branch out into such areas as profiteering from the Katrina disaster. The rest of the pattern of administration misdeeds then falls neatly into place -- explainable not as an overzealous desire to "protect Americans," but as simple greed and wholesale looting. That's what the broad public doesn't understand about the Bush White House. Indeed, it took me a while to grasp this simple principle. They're not ideologues. They're just thieves. Their ideology, fear mongering, and faux patriotism boil down the manipulation tactics of criminals. Once you have proven that, building a case for impeachment -- one that will command a broad consensus among all Americans -- is easy. Building that case, which means defining Republican rule as a kleptocracy, ought to be the thread that runs through every investigation the new Democratic Congress undertakes. Indeed, it ought to be persistent theme that runs through all our efforts at educating the public. Refer to the "kleptocracy" every chance you get -- and tie it mercilessly to everything else they do, from the "war on terror," to the war in Iraq, the election shenanigans, to every management failure, to their political harassment of dissenters and whistleblowers. Nothing this administration has done -- or will do -- cannot be explained as part of a straightforward plan to loot the treasury. So start explaining it that way -- especially since that is motive most Americans can readily understand. And don't you worry. Protecting that kleptocracy will become a high priority to the White House. Attacking, and forcing the White House to defend it's kleptocracy is the key strategic pressure point. The White House cannot cooperate, and must obstruct and delay any investigation into their looting. This will cause them to precipitate the very constitutional crisis that will spell their undoing. Remember your civil war history. "Secession" was little more than a word on the day Lincoln took office. Oh sure, seven southern states passed "oridinances of secession," and even met to form a government of sorts. But a government is more than a document, and bunch of people meeting in a room somewhere. Sooner or later, governments must exercise actual sovereignty, which means they must defend -- with force -- their territory. That's why Lincoln chose to reinforce Fort Sumter. They could decide to let him -- and gradually just sort of forget about that whole "Confederate States of America" thingy. Or they could attempt to seize that fort, signalling that their rebellion was serious. It was important to Lincoln that the South throw the first punch. When the confederate forces in Charleston obliged him, the onus of creating the crisis was on the South. The same principle is at work here. Investigate the stealing -- which Congress clearly has a right to do. When the adminstration stonewalls -- and they will -- they will have thrown the first punch.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Minerva (#0)
Clinton covered up the bombing of the federal building in OKC. The Republicans could not convict because they had to protect the Jewish people involved. And now the Democrats must protect Israel so the public does not know of their involvement in 911. Did you notice that even KOS who does support iompeachment skates past 911? And the Dem pols are steering completely clear.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
If threatening the Constitution were the standard upon which impeachment were determined every President since Lincoln should have been impeached. Incremental erosion of the Bill of Rights has occurred as the result of lawyers, lobbyists, corporations, the dumbing down of the populace, claims of promoting the greater good, apathy and war. Should a revolution occur all past Presidents should be re-evaluated and impeached if found to have violated the public trust. False history has promoted the unsavory enemies of liberty to saint status. Even now, George H. W. Bush is attempting to glorify himself by having ships and buildings named for himself ... as if he were something more than a murdering mob boss.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry
Bush will not be impeached because it would bring down the whole rotten Establishment that runs Washington.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||