![]() |
By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers (about the author) Page 2 of 3 page(s)
If Bush chooses to veto some or all of those bills, his Republican party will pay dearly in 2008, and he knows it. In short, it's a win-win for the Dems.
RE-DEPLOYING THE TROOPS
4. After those "easy" issues are dealt with, presumably in a whirlwind in early-February, then it's on to the more difficult ones, such as Iraq, Social Security and Medicare reform, Congressional investigations of Bush Administration foreign and domestic wrongdoing, rolling back Bush's Constitutional violations in the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act, Bush's abolition of Posse Comitatus and the right of "habeus corpus," reining in Bush's vetos-by-another-name ( "signing statements"), etc.
Right now, on Iraq, Bush seems to be trying his old ploy of "I'll be happy to work with the opposition in getting approval for my policies." But, if the Democrats hold firm in their desire to have U.S. troops "re-deployed" outside Iraq, Bush may have to compromise.
So far, Bush has given no indication that he understands what the midterm voters were telling him by their votes and in exit polls about Iraq: that 60% want the U.S. either to start pulling troops out slowly, starting within the next seven weeks, or to take them all out at once. Remaining in occupation of Iraq is not an option. Staying the course is not an option. Changing the Secretary of Defense but essentially keeping the policy is not an option. Using the term "victory in Iraq" as your goal is not an option -- unless that term were to translate to: "Declare victory and get out, as in: 'We have accomplished toppling the dictator, and helped set up a democratic government, and now it's time to go'."
SETTING THE IMPEACHMENT TABLE
5. For what it's worth, I believe it's proper that the new Democratic majority in the House not establish an impeachment panel as one of their first items of business when they take over.
I'm basing that view not on Pelosi's statement that impeachment is "off the table," but on common-sense politics and practicalities. It would seem to make more sense for the various House committees, which will be chaired by tenacious Democrats like Dingell and Conyers and Waxman, et. al, to hold their investigatory hearings first. If and when clear evidence of malfeasance or "high crimes and misdemeanors" is produced and verified, then the table has been set in the public mind for the next step: an impeachment hearing.
SPEAK SOFTLY & CARRY BIG STICK
6. Bush and Cheney, rightly so, are terrified of the idea of investigations and possible impeachment -- and of criminal trials down the road. That gives the Democrats a huge, powerful stick to wield over their heads. One would think the Dems might hint at taking out that stick on occasion to get their way on other major issues.
In short, it might well be in Bush's interest to modify his simplistic, bullying, black-and-white view of the world -- my way or the highway -- or risk facing the release of the Democratic attack dogs for major probes of even more of his Administration's misbehavior. It's long past time for the Democrats to learn how to play political hardball and partisan street-fighting. Civil but tough.
LEST WE FORGET
7. We're all caught up in the euphoria of the massive GOP defeat in the midterm election. And it's true that what the voters have accomplished is historic, with a lot of help from the Democratic Party establishment and its progressive base, led by organizations like MoveOn.org along with activist bloggers -- and from traditional and moderate conservatives who had had enough of the extremism being peddled by Bush&Co.
But even with the House and Senate in Democratic hands, we need to remember that the immense power of the presidency is still in the hands of Bushistas like Richard Cheney and Karl Rove and George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice and Stephen Hadley and Alberto Gonzales.
They have refashioned the Constitution to make Bush immune from obeying laws he doesn't like; they have invented theories that permit him to round up anyone, American citizen or not, and throw them into a military clink without access to lawyers; they have so bent the definition of "torture" as to make it unrecognizable (it now means that the government can do anything to you short of killing you or doing great injury to your internal organs); the president claims to be able to "pre-emptively" attack any foreign country and power regardless of whether they are an imminent threat to the U.S.; the security forces can now enter your home, search your house, peek into your private email and computer files, without you ever being informed and without you even knowing; the government can now violate the privacy of attorney/client privilege by listening in on all such conversations; the government can declare martial law whenever it so chooses; and on and on.
www.crisispapers.org
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
View Authors' Articles |
| 3 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |