By taking impeachment "off the table," Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers may have made partisan sense during the run-up to the November 2006 midterm election -- the Dems didn't want to scare away any wavering Republicans. Perhaps it even made sense in the first few months of their new majority status in Congress. But it's now mid-2007 and a whole lot of awful, fetid water has flowed under the political bridge in the interim.
It's long past time for Dem leaders to re-think their strategy on this issue, and to use the great leverage their majority status now conveys -- much of that leverage inadvertently supplied by Bush and Cheney themselves -- to help protect the American people from the Administration's dangerous policies.
The old issues are still there and together would make up formidable reasons to begin impeachment hearings in the House. But some or all of those highly-publicized issues (lying to take the country to war, U.S. attorneys scandal cover-up, torture as state policy, widespread domestic spying without court warrants, et al.) might not fly with many Republicans. They can choose to believe that the Administration has the right to be wrong in its policies but are not generally engaged in anything that would rise to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" required for impeachment.
What I'm proposing here is that the Democrats stick to one simple yet vastly important, impeachment charge that might well garner enormous support from Republicans and Dems alike: that CheneyBush have endangered U.S. national security in a wide variety of ways, and thus have violated their oaths of office to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," and thus the citizens of these United States. Since CheneyBush are not permitted to run for another term, impeachment is the only constitutional form of accountability for such criminal behavior.
NO PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW
Much of the evidence for such a charge has been revealed only recently. (I'm about to take off for a week's vacation in a few minutes, so I won't be able to include whatever further gory details emerge in the next few days, but the essence probably won't change.)
I think most Americans can be reached on a gut level about both the issue of Bush and Cheney's endangering America's national security by their cavalier treatment of classified secrets, documents and personnel and by the generally-accepted principle that "no person is above the law" in our society.
So, let's do a quick summary of how Bush and Cheney have endangered America's national security; we won't even include their launching an unnecessary war of aggression on Iraq based on lies and deceptions, thus putting the U.S. and U.S. citizens in grave danger, all the while serving as al-Qaida's best recruiting tool. No, for impeachment purposes, we'll stick with the documented evidence of law-breaking. (Much of what follows in this first section is information gathered from White House insiders by Chairman Henry Waxman's staff on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.) ( http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=517 )
SECURITY OFFICE IS NOT DOING ITS JOB
There is a compliance officer in the White House who heads up the White House Security Office charged with protecting classified information and making sure that whenever lapses occur they are properly reported and corrected. Apparently none of this is being done. It appears that Bush and Cheney have cut out access to and monitoring of classified information and its handling in the White House. This puts the national security of the country at risk.
Even when security breaches are reported to the Security Office by Secret Service agents and others, for example, they are not investigated. Apparently, Bush and Cheney have ruled the White House off-limits to probes of the very actions that Bush made illegal under Executive Order 12958. This puts the national security of the country at risk.
Of course, the most egregious example of endangering America's security was when Cheney and Libby and Rove (probably with Bush's knowledge) spread the word around the press that Valerie Plame -- wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had publicly questioned the way intelligence was "twisted" to justify the invasion of Iraq -- was a CIA agent. She had been covertly working in the WMD field, and her outing may have resulted in scores of CIA assets around the world being compromised and "neutralized." Such callous political behavior, to punish a critic (and by doing so warning others not to try something similar) by ruining the career of his wife, put the national security of the country at risk.
Another example: A senior advisor to the President improperly disclosed classified material to a junior aide, who had no security clearance. No investigation of this breach took place at the White House. This puts the national security of the country at risk.
Classified documents were left lying around in open view in White House offices, when they should have been required to be locked away at secure locations. No investigations were carried out, no disciplinary measures applied. This puts the national security of the country at risk.
In short, as Waxman wrote then-White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, there is a "systemic breakdown in security procedures at the White House." This puts the national security of the country at risk. If doing so is not an impeachable offense, what is?
Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international relations, has taught at universities in California and Washington, worked for two decades as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently serves as co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org).
You are right, perhaps this might be an area where Congress could agree and impeach Bush. Still, I would be surprised if the Democrats proceed with impeachment. I believe the Democrats are afraid of Bush and Cheney. Before the Anthrax scare on the Democrats in Congress, their were Democrats that did not want the Patriot Act, the Antrax was sent to the Democrats, they voted for the Patriot Act. The Democrats in Congress, I believe are afraid and this is why they will not proceed to impeach Bush.
by
Diane_B (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 26 comments)
on Saturday, July 7, 2007 at 4:49:18 PM
How do we get this information to the general public? The media whores are in lock step with these criminals. My family and I spend hours every day emailing, calling, signing petitions and writing letters to bring these facts to as many people as we can but will that be enough?
Please tell me if you have any other ideas to inform people about the state of this administration.
by
Caronome (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 257 comments)
on Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 10:04:43 AM
You may be right about Congress being afraid of the Bush crime family. But it's their job to impeach when the situation is this dire. If Dennis Kucinich has the courage (balls) to introduce his bill for impeachment surely some of these big, strong big mouths in Congress can at least sign on to it.
by
Caronome (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 257 comments)
on Sunday, July 8, 2007 at 10:11:11 AM
4 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
