I have been struggling with the idea as to whether I want to see Bush/Cheney impeached. Impeaching Bush would be useless, because Cheney is the power behind the throne. Bush is a pawn in the game. The reason I struggled with the idea is not that think Bush/Cheney don't deserve impeachment, because I think they do. There is no doubt in my mind that the House has ample grounds to vote for impeachment hearings, but I want to get our troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible. They've done what we asked them to do, and we are now an occupying force in Iraq. I want our part in the killing to stop. I hesitated on impeachment, because I have no faith that the US Congress can walk and chew gum at the same time.
But now I think it's time for impeachment hearings.
Those of you who did not get to see Bill Moyers' Journal on July 13, might want to have a look at Moyer's discussion with two constitutional scholars on whether George Bush and Dick Cheney should be impeached.
From the transcript:
Bruce Fein has been affiliated with conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation and now writes a weekly column for THE WASHINGTON TIMES and Politico.com.
He's joined by John Nichols, the Washington correspondent for THE NATION and an associate editor of the CAPITOL TIMES. Among his many books is this most recent one, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: THE FOUNDERS' CURE FOR ROYALISM.
Note that Fein's associations are with conservative institutions.
...BILL MOYERS: You're saying you want the judiciary committee to call formal hearings on the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney?
BRUCE FEIN: Yes. Because there are political crimes that have been perpetrated in combination. It hasn't been one, the other being in isolation. And the hearings have to be not into this is a Republican or Democrat. This is something that needs to set a precedent, whoever occupies the White House in 2009. You do not want to have that occupant, whether it's John McCain or Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani or John Edwards to have this authority to go outside the law and say, "I am the law. I do what I want. No one else's view matters."
JOHN NICHOLS: The hearings are important. There's no question at that. And we should be at that stage. Remember, Thomas Jefferson and others, the founders, suggested that impeachment was an organic process. That information would come out. The people would be horrified. They would tell their representatives in Congress, "You must act upon this." Well, the interesting thing is we are well down the track in the organic process. The people are saying it's time. We need some accountability.
BILL MOYERS: But Nancy Pelosi doesn't agree.
JOHN NICHOLS: Nancy Pelosi is wrong. Nancy Pelosi is disregarding her oath of office. She should change course now. And more importantly, members of her caucus and responsible Republicans should step up.
....
BILL MOYERS: I have to interrupt you and say, look, you guys don't live in la-la land. Both of you are in-- in and around power all the time. Why doesn't Nancy Pelosi see it her duty to take on at least the impeachment hearings that you say would educate the public about the states that you think--
BRUCE FEIN: Because I think that politics has become debased so that it's a matter of one party against another and jockeying and maneuvering. There is no longer any statesmanship.
BRUCE FEIN: I go back to the real vulnerability and weakness of Congress, that they don't have anybody who can, as a chairman or even asking a question like John or me say, "Mr. Attorney General, you answer that question. This is the United States of America. Transparency is the rule here. We don't have secret government. That's what Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote about in the Gulag. That's not the United States of America. We pay your salary. We have a right to know 'cause it's our duty to decide whether what you're doing is legal and wise, not yours. Answer that question or you're held in contempt right now." And that's-- and all you need is that tone of voice. But what happens up there? "Well, would you please answer?" Well, are you sure? When-- could you get John Ashcroft? I mean, it's just staggering.\
....
BILL MOYERS: You just said in one sentence there "impeach Bush and Cheney." You're talking about taking that ax against the head of government, both of them.
JOHN NICHOLS: No. No, no, no.
BRUCE FEIN: It's not an ax, Bill.
JOHN NICHOLS: We're talking--
BRUCE FEIN: It's not an ax-- it's not--Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding.
JOHN NICHOLS: You are being--
BRUCE FEIN: --we cannot entrust the reins of power, unchecked power, with these people. They're untrustworthy. They're asserting theories of governments that are monarchical. We don't want them to exercise it. We don't want Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani or anyone in the future to exercise that.
JOHN NICHOLS: Bill Moyers, you are making a mistake. You are making a mistake that too many people make.
BILL MOYERS: Yes.
JOHN NICHOLS: You are seeing impeachment as a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crisis. Don't mistake the medicine for the disease. When you have a constitutional crisis, the founders are very clear. They said there is a way to deal with this. We don't have to have a war. We don't have to raise an army and go to Washington. We have procedures in place where we can sanction a president appropriately, do what needs to be done up to the point of removing him from office and continue the republic. So we're not talking here about taking an ax to government. Quite the opposite. We are talking about applying some necessary strong medicine that may cure not merely the crisis of the moment but, done right-
BRUCE FEIN: Moreover, it's--
JOHN NICHOLS: --might actually cure--
BRUCE FEIN: It's not an attack on Bush and Cheney in the sense of their personal-- attacks. Listen, if you impeach them, they can live happily ever after into their-
JOHN NICHOLS: And go to San Clemente.
BRUCE FEIN: Yes, go to San Clemente or go back to the ranch or whatever. But it's saying no, it's the Constitution that's more important than your aggrandizing of power. And not just for you because the precedent that would be set would bind every successor in the presidency as well, no matter Republican, Democrat, Independent, or otherwise.
I had a really hard time picking out quotes to use, because the two men said so much that is right and true. If you have the time to watch the video or read the whole transcript, it's well worth it. They indict not only Bush/Cheney, but the supine Congress for not doing its job and not exercising the power of the purse to put a stop to the abuses of the Constitution.
Fein was on Countdown last night. I hope he'll be all over TV, because he is articulate and knows his stuff and makes an excellent case.
It's time for impeachment. It's past time.
Mimi,
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm proud to confess that my first campaign was for George McGovern, and I loved Nixon's Watergate because it vindicated the notorious leftists, and I have never voted for a damned Republic(sic) candidate for president, this pair is the WORST ever. G-d help us as we try to find our way back to the larger community of nations.
We won't impeach because we don't have the nerve to face the conflict.
Kinda mirrors what we "libruls" in TEC face, doesn't it?
All my best.
John D, no doubt you are right. The two wise men said much the same.
ReplyDeleteI still remember the day Nixon resigned, where I was, and what relief I felt.
This pair is far, far worse.
Thanks for dropping in.
It was unfortunate in many ways that the Repugs went after Clinton the way they did. I think that left a lot of people (in Congress and out) weary of the impeachment process. Which is too bad, because this whole administration ought to be in jail.
ReplyDeleteArgh.
I felt I learned so much with John NIchols saying: "You are seeing impeachment as a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crisis. Don't mistake the medicine for the disease." Yes, I think this is how I (and most Americans) have wrongly viewed that matter of impeachment. This really has me thinking. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteWow yes. and they're right. people don't get it.
ReplyDeleteAs a (recovering) attorney and lover of the Constitution, there is no doubt in my mind that the men and women in the White House right now have committed numerable impeachable offenses. Rock on, Mimi! And Amen.
ReplyDeleteImpeachment proceedings would be pointless since the Democrats lack the votes to convict by a simple majority, let alone by the two-thirds required by the Constitution. Can you see Lieberman - whose interests in the Middle East are not those of the United States - voting to convict?
ReplyDeleteLapin, I don't know. Perhaps a few Republicans would cross over to be rid of B/C before the election. I agree that it would be an uphill battle, but that does not mean the Democrats should not try.
ReplyDeleteThe Dems should immediately vote on impeachment hearings against Alberto Gonzales for perjury. More than a few Republicans might be willing to join them in that effort.
How about contempt citations against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton for refusing to testify, with jail time threatened if they continue to refuse?
Why did we vote Democrats in for crying out loud?
Why did we vote Democrats in for crying out loud?
ReplyDeleteWe voted Democrats in because there is no truly small d democratic alternative (and no small r republican alternative for that matter.)
Of course the House should impeach and of course it most likely won't.
I fear for the future of this country.
Mimi, I am with you 110 per cent. And I am very glad you have posted this. People keep saying it can't be done, and that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let's keep saying it CAN be done until that perception can be shifted. The point that this is actually a cure, a way of restoring constitutional norms, could help many citizens see the value in taking this vital step.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that my contribution to this discussion will get me into trouble since I'll come across as a nag. I have permanently given up political discussions since consensus is even less likely in that domain than it is in the Land of Anglican.
ReplyDeleteI know that a democracy requires that we be involved in and informed about our process of government and know that vigilance is needed to ensure constitutional limitations to power. I do what I can.
However, when I was in conservative church circles, I saw many who were so consumed with politics and the opposition, it replaced a healthier peace that could have been theirs.
Now, in environs less politically conservative, I know many who are so consumed with politics and the opposition, it replaces a healthier peace that can be theirs.
I guess what I'm saying is that the adage of "moderation in all things" applies to the political, secular and ecclesiastical, as well as the rest of life. Do what we can for good, while remembering that in the end, God is in control.
Thus ends the nagging.
Peace
The people are so far ahead of the Congress on this issue, as well as with the issue of wanting out of Iraq, that I wonder why the Democrats are so timid and what they are afraid of.
ReplyDeleteIs it still Karl Rove whom they fear? They damned well better begin to fear us, the people of the country.
Now, in environs less politically conservative, I know many who are so consumed with politics and the opposition, it replaces a healthier peace that can be theirs.
KJ, you make a good point. We cannot let our political disappointments and frustrations consume our lives. I have found that one way to prevent that is to pray for the people whose actions I am most opposed to. I believe that, over time, it is not possible to hate those for whom you pray.
Now, I can do my activism - such as it is - without having it consume my life.
Gonzales and the others I agree on, but going for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney won't work (2/3rds for conviction will require 15 Republicans and Lieberman - not a chance, and if the critically ill Democratic senator from the NW passes on, the Republicans will regain control of the Senate).
ReplyDeleteAttempting impeachment will risk leaving the Democrats looking weak and petty (remember how the Republicans looked after the Clinton mess) which is the last thing we need.
Against the odds (remember how Rove had supposedly Gerrymandered the Permanent Republican Congressional Majority?) and thanks to the Republicans, the Democrats swept the House last year, but because of checks and balances (1/3 up for election every other year) change in the Senate is a more gradual matter - plus a relatively small proportion of Republican senators came up for (re)election this last time around.
What the House can do, and is doing, is hold hearings into particularly fragrant scandals. Trouble is, so little time and so much to do. This administration has corrupted the Constitution so thoroughly, root and branch - and it will be many years before we begin to learn just how thoroughly they corrupted it - that the House can only mine the tip of the iceberg.
Gonzales is as good a point as any to start mining.
Gonzales may be the boy with his finger in the dyke.
ReplyDeleteStop press from the NYT - "Report Says Astronauts Flew Drunk". No end to it, is there?
ReplyDeleteSilly Wabbit; of course you are correct.
ReplyDeleteSplendid post, my dear Mimi, ya darlin' ya. I feel like getting very personal wit chew, cher, but I restrain myself.
When did I begin to fear for my country? When I saw what LBJ had sold us (Vietnam), and what we'd bought, I thought "We wuz hornswaggled!". My impending military duty (not "service", please, for my sake: thank you.) focussed my mind on the issue remarkably, as Mr. Clemens, Pilot, once said of the man about to be hanged.
As an American Historian (M.A. only: well, M. Div and M Vietnam too), I may say this is the worst and most threatening group of thugs Americans have faced, at least since the veterans and pirates (when there was a difference) who founded Virginia during the Restoration in the later 17th century: truly committed to evil, they were. Ask a Southerner about her ancestry, and see what she knows.
The question is, in part, how much Constitutional Authority may Congress assert, and have anybody listening? The Supreme Court? They're the ones who got us in this evil mess, and it was a better Court then.
Here's a very soft question: the police, the lower courts, the Armed Forces? Who in the armed forces? The police where?
It's nice that some old lawyers' contacts in my hometown put my name and purpose in their minds: "Here for his mother.", a good purpose. I'm not sure I entirely like being Southern in some ways, especially when I'm there.
I may even be perceived as respectable, through no fault of my own, I assure you (a little backup would be especially welcome, Grandmere et al.: heh.)
Prayers for Peter, 9, away today for camp, if I heard it right.
Lapin, I read the story of the drunk astronauts, too. All of our institutions have turned to crap.
ReplyDeleteJohnieb, oooh, all those M's. I'll bet your M Vietnam taught you the most.
You are, indeed, respectable, Johnieb, or, at the very least, half-way.
Prayers for Peter.
About not liking being southern, you are what you are, and all of it makes you what you are today - no turning back - only acceptance.
Some of my roots are in Virginia, too - the Bolling family. In fact, we are the rightful owners of Bolling Hall, but the dastardly British cheated us out of it. ;o)
Damn, MP, have you followed the Bolling Hall link above? Appears that Miss Mimi's really from Bradford! A Yorkshire Lass. All that Bayou/Spanish Moss stuff is a smokescreen. One of them you were commenting on a day or so back as serves ye' last, if at all, at the pub.
ReplyDeleteCue for muck n' brass jokes, I guess.
Sorry about that, but Bradford is close to my home turf - wrong county, though.
ReplyDeleteLapin, you're speaking English English what with your "muck n' brass jokes". If it's dirty, don't explain.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the chances that we could get the ancestral home back to the proper owners - us, me?
P.S. Nevermind the explanation. I think I've worked it out for myself, and I believe it is naughty.
ReplyDeleteNot naughty at all. It refers to the Northern saying - Lancashire and Yorkshire, "where there's muck, there's brass", muck meaning dirt, and brass, in the colloquial Northern sense, meaning money. It's an Industrial Revolution proverb, equating the coal-derived dirt associated with industry in it's steam-engine-driven phase (19th & first half of the 20th centuries - earlier industry depended on water-power) with the wealth that the industry produced. It has long been a humorous phrase, trotted out to make fun of the North. Google "where there's muck there's brass" & you'll get many hits.
ReplyDeleteWell then, Lapin, now you've corrected me on that, I can see it's my mind that's naughty, right?
ReplyDelete