In the CheneyBush Administration, there will be no oversight of the Executive Branch. Ever. We are honest public servants in the White House; you must trust us when we say that we are not engaged in wrongdoing. L'Etat c'est moi. Just move along, nothing to see here.
Since there is no way to vote this corrupted crew out of power until the next general election 15 months from now, the only Constitutional method for some restoration of our representative democracy is, indeed, impeachment and removal upon conviction.
Only then might we return to the Founders' brilliant checks-and-balances system, where no one branch of government would be able to exercise too much power over the others.
SHUTTING DOWN DISSENT
Bush also issued two other ambiguous, problematic executive orders this past week. Each seems to be one thing but the ramifications may make them something else again.
The first executive order deals with cracking down on those organizations and individuals that, in the Administration's eyes, "threaten stablization efforts in Iraq"; but the wording is so vague ( http://blogs.zmag.org/node/3103 ) as to leave open the possibility that legitimate dissenters and peace organizations might have their property seized and/or will be arrested for opposing the war. In other words, this executive order gives the Executive Branch yet another weapon with which to deal with its political enemies, should it choose to do so. It already has the power, approved by the Congress, to enter your computer and read your mail and spy on your phone calls, and also the power to declare a national emergency and rule by martial law. Can anyone spell the F-word?
The second executive order last week seemed to be bowing to public pressure to end the Administration's fascination with torture and humiliation of "unlawful combatants" in its care. But a closer reading ( http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015659.php ) of this ambiguous document reveals that it never really goes into what forms of "enhanced interrogation techniques" are still permitted. "Waterboarding" (nearly drowning a prisoner), for example, may or may not be on the approved list. But without Congress insisting on carrying out its mandated oversight responsibilities, we may never find out.
ABUSING THE POWER TO MAKE WAR
Another compelling reason for moving quickly now to bring Cheney and Bush before an impeachment panel of the House is their reckless, dangerous behavior in having started one war and their movement towards starting another.
The first war, on Iraq, was based on lies and deceptions. CheneyBush's continual escalation, and their current "do-over" war, demonstrate that no amount of "surging" and draconian occupation can bring peace to a land wracked by major civil/sectarian divisions.
The war they are planning, probably in coordination with Israel, is aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear installations and scientific infrastructure, thus setting back by at least a decade or two Iran's military ambitions and growing political influence in the Middle East.
The Bush Administration's neo-conservatives -- of which Cheney is the most ideological and bloodthirsty adherent -- are working like crazy to foment that war against Iran.
IRAN WAR WOULD BE LUNATIC
These guys never learn. They gave up on the one war they might possibly have won -- the one in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al-Qaida -- and moved their troops precipitately to Iraq, which was no danger to the U.S.; now the Afghanistan war has flared up again, with the Taliban re-energized. Based on lies and deceits, the CheneyBush Administration invaded and occupied Iraq with no real understanding of that society and with no Plan B in case they ran into trouble; now they're in deep, deep trouble and won't change course.
The CheneyBush desire to start a third war in Iran is absolutely nuts, and will further damage America's military and political position in the region and around the world, and will lead to even more terrorist activity directed at the U.S.
This analysis does not even go into the likelihood that Turkey might well invade Iraq to keep the Kurds from gaining enough military and political strength to move on Kurdistan statehood. Or that the U.S. might unlilaterally attack the resurgent Al-Qaida forces in the northwest tribal areas of Pakistan, or force the Musharaff government to do so, in either instance leading to the fall of that government to Islamist extremists who would then have their hands on deliverable nuclear weaponry. Or that Russia, anxious to slow down the further deterioration of its old empire and influence, including in the Greater Middle East, is starting to take on Western Europe and the U.S.
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).
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
