For the past year, as the impeachable crimes of President Bush and Vice President Cheney have mounted, Democratic members of Congress have scrambled to present a whole array of explanations for why they can’t support impeachment.
Chief among these has been the argument that “we don’t have the votes to convict” in the Senate. This has been closely followed by the argument that impeachment would “take too much time” and that it would “divert attention from the important legislative work” of the Democrats in Congress. Right behind this, and linked to it, has been the argument that “the important thing is ending the Iraq War,” and that “impeachment would interfere with that goal.” Then there has been the argument that impeachment would be “divisive” and that the voters want the Congress to “work constructively” on the nation’s problems. Finally, there has been the argument that impeachment is not necessary because Congress under the Democrats would be conducting “investigations” that would serve the same purpose of impeachment in rooting out the administration’s wrongdoings.
Okay. It’s clear to me that all those rationales for inaction on impeachment are simply excuses. But for the sake of argument, accept them as a given. If we do this, we are left to wonder why, if these are valid reasons for Democrats to duck impeachment of the president or vice president, they don’t apply also to the impeachment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Take Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA). Inslee not only has consistently said he opposes any effort to impeach Bush and Cheney; he has actively tried to stifle a powerful grassroots movement for impeachment in his home state of Washington, which came close to getting a joint resolution calling for Congress to impeach considered in that state’s legislature. As a vote neared, Inslee, together with Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) both rushed back home from Washington DC, reportedly at the request of the Democratic leadership in Congress, to twist the arms of key state legislators and block a floor vote on the resolution, which had been submitted by state Senator Eric Oemig. At the time, Inslee, while assuring his liberal constituents that he agreed that the president was violating the constitution, offered up all the above rationales for saying impeachment was a bad strategy.
Yet Inslee has been quick to file a bill (H. Res 589) for the impeachment of Gonzales on a charge of lying to Congress about the National Security Agency’s warrantless spying program.
Can Inslee today say that “the votes are there” in the Senate to convict Gonzales? Of course he can’t. Can he say that a Gonzales impeachment would not be a “diversion”? Of course not. Can he say it would not “divert attention” from ending the war in Iraq? Of course not (in fact, unlike the impeachment of Bush or Cheney, which would focus on the lies leading up to the war, the impeachment of Gonzales, as proposed by Inslee, would have nothing to do with the war and would indeed be a diversion from that key issue!). Would the impeachment of Gonzales be “divisive”? Certainly it would be at least as divisive as an impeachment of Bush or Cheney. And as for the “investigations” argument , Congress is in the midst of investigating Gonzales, and has the option of having him prosecuted for perjury—an option that isn’t even available when it comes to Bush and his crimes—so why the bum’s rush for impeachment?
And yet Inslee has already won support quickly from 14 other members of Congress for his bill. What these worthies, all Democrats, have in common with Inslee is that, with two exceptions, none of them has favored impeaching the president for crimes far more egregious than those of Gonzales, and not one has signed on to the bill (H Res 333), submitted on April 24 by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), calling for the impeachment of Cheney. That earlier bill has 15 co-sponsors at this point too, but again with two exceptions, they are a completely different group of congress members from the Inslee crew.
Take Rep. Tom Udall. Udall, who represents the state of New Mexico, was in a position to support the impeachment of the president back in the spring, when an aggressive effort was underway in his own state’s legislature to pass a joint resolution calling on Congress to initiate impeachment hearings against Bush. Instead of supporting that effort, Udall stayed out of the fray, and while no one has charged him with arm-twisting in the state legislature the way Inslee did in Olympia, WA, he also apparently did nothing when other leading Democrats did work behind the scenes to block the effort.
Other House members who are jumping on Inslee’s “Impeach Gonzales” bandwagon but who have refused to consider impeaching Bush or Cheney include: Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Michael Arcuri (D-NY), Ben Chandler (D-KY), Dennis Moore (D-KS), Bruce Braley (D-IA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Steve Cohen (D-TN).
Only Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) are supporters of both Inslee’s Gonzales impeachment bill and Kucinich’s Cheney impeachment bill.
So what is the deal here?
Are Inslee and the majority of his co-sponsors backing a Gonzales impeachment because they aren’t getting any flak about it from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who a year ago announced that under Democratic control, impeachment in Congress would be “off the table”? Are they even getting behind-the-scenes encouragement from Pelosi?
Is impeaching Gonzales meant as a sop to placate angry progressive Democratic voters—a way of avoiding public wrath for not supporting impeachment of the president and/or vice president (impeachment activists in Rep. Inslee’s district tell me that for several months now he hasn’t been able to hold town meetings there without the majority of attendees yelling at him for opposing impeachment of the president)?
Or is it that impeaching Gonzales on the narrow issue of lying about NSA spying avoids the messy problem of having to admit that all too many Democrats have been complicit in or even supportive of most of Bush’s and Cheney’s crimes against the law and the Constitution?
Clearly, impeaching Bush or Cheney for lying about the war would be an embarrassment to many Democrats, like Sen. Hillary Clinton, for example, who supported those lies and supported the illegal invasion of Iraq.
Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
It's a sad testament to the political times. I agree, and suggest that the Democrats are also using the “don’t stop your enemy when they are destroying themselves” argument internally, but don’t want to say so publicly... i.e., Bush is destroying the Republican party, so why stop him?
Extended pressure could eventually work on the Democrats, or we will come to the next election, and can hopefully start to fix things then.
by
John R Moffett (82 articles, 17 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 646 comments)
on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 at 3:04:01 PM
They're going after Gonzo to avoid confronting Bush & Cheney
They want to showcase themselves as "opposing" the Bush regime -- while doing nothing to actually stop the regime's crimes.
Your point that Inslee and most of his co-sponsors have refused to sign Kucinich's HR 333 demonstrates the unprincipled grandstanding nature of the move on Gonzo. As you clearly show, every Dem excuse for why they won't go after Bush, should apply to Gonzo as well. Overlooking those excuses in the case of Gonzo means a deliberate attempt to create a diversionary sideshow.
This in turn will be used (assuming it gets that far) to say, "Well, NOW the nation can no longer afford another long drawn-out divisive partisan impeachment battle.” This will then be the excuse for failing to go after the head criminals in the White House.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1216 comments)
on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 at 3:46:58 PM
All good points. You're right, Gonzales is the "safe" impeachment and that is why so many are much less reticent about jumping on the band wagon, yet the concept of the impeachment of Bush and or Cheney is becoming a down-right mainstream idea.
A recent post at Political Animal reports poll results that assert that "among all U.S. voters, impeachment enjoys 46% support, a plurality. In all, 69% of Dems, 50% of independents, and 13% of Republicans say they favor the start of an impeachment process."
"* Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney?"
Among all U.S. adults, a 54% majority support the House initiating impeachment proceedings against Cheney. Among all U.S. voters, impeachment enjoys 50% support. In all, 76% of Dems, 51% of independents, and 17% of Republicans say they favor the start of an impeachment process."
The democratic leadership continues to personify the "democrats are weak stereotype".
Over half the country wants the troops in Iraq out, yet the war continues to be funded and even with facts on their side, and the support of the majority of the American people, they refuse to aggressively face down a clearly incompetent, unethical, and dishonest White House and their supporters in Congress using some tact that could realistically gain them more affirmative votes.
Gonzales is more of a sure bet that they won't have to mix it up with a robust opposition. Its pretty disappointing, but I'm also personally looking for some kind... any kind of accountability at this point.
by
CD Rodgers (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 88 comments)
on Thursday, August 2, 2007 at 11:30:38 AM
The impeachment of Gonzales will prove a slippery slope.
The impeachment of Gonzales, if it's done forthrightly, will prove to be a slippery slope. Any honest investigation of Gonzo will inevitably lead to the impeachment of Cheney and Bush, and probably to the indictment of Karl Rove and (Yep! Again.) Scooter Libby. They're all in bed together, after all. Might as well try to investigate Bonnie without incriminating Clyde.
by
Jimmy Montague (3 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 61 comments)
on Thursday, August 2, 2007 at 11:53:26 AM
I disagree. I don't think the democrats are a fake opposition, their the only
tangible opposition. If not for the democrats there wouldn't even be a hint of accountability.
I am very much a democrat from a long line of democrats but that doesn't mean that I can't expect more.
Ineffectual on the issues that are most consequential or not, some attempt is being made by some who really do want to exact change. The more vocal support there is for the efforts of Feingold, Kucinich and others who are real leaders, the greater the chance that others in the party will follow.
by
CD Rodgers (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 88 comments)
on Friday, August 3, 2007 at 9:20:33 AM
I disagree. I don't think the democrats are a fake opposition, their the only tangible opposition. If not for the democrats there wouldn't even be a hint of accountability. by CDR
You nailed it. All the democrats provide is a hint - of accountability.
by
RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments)
on Friday, August 3, 2007 at 3:08:13 PM
I'm no apologist for the party even though I identify strongly with it. Dave's article makes it more than obvious that the democrats could impeach Bush, and especially Cheney, which I am all for, if only they had the will to do the hard thing, rather than reaching for what there is more agreement for.
My disagreement arises via the term fake, (not that strong a dispute mind you on an evening when the Senate passed the Bush-backed terrorism spy bill, sure to reduce civil liberties and puts Gonzales at the forefront with a like-minded watcher).
The two guys I mentioned above agressively walk the walk, they're not fronting or creeping toward the middle everytime Bush makes what amounts to a democrats are unamerican speech and the terrorists are coming speech.
Then again, a pair may just constitute "a hint" when the voting public has the perception that vacation is more important than good legislation. Who does that remind you of?
AP: Democrats agreed the law should not restrict U.S. spies from tapping in on foreign suspects. However, they initially demanded the FISA court to review the eavesdropping process before it begins to make sure that Americans aren't targeted.
By the final vote, Senate Democrats had whittled down that demand and approved a bill that largely mirrored what the Bush administration wanted. It requires:
Initial approval by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The administration relented to Democrats leery of Gonzales by adding McConnell to the oversight.
FISA Court review within 120 days. The final Democratic plan had called for court review to begin immediately and conclude within a month of the surveillance starting
The law to expire in six months to give Congress time to craft a more comprehensive plan. The White House initially wanted the bill to be permanent.
Before the vote, Democrats excoriated the GOP plan, which Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said "provides a weak and practically nonexistent court review."
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., angrily chastised his colleagues for bending to the administration's will.
"The day we start deferring to someone who's not a member of this body ... is a sad day for the U.S. Senate," Feingold said. "We make the policy — not the executive branch."
Likewise, civil liberties advocates said they were outraged that Democratic-led Senate would side with the White House.
"We're hugely disappointed with the Democrats," said Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "The idea they let themselves be manipulated into accepting the White House proposal, certainly taking a great deal of it, when they're in control — it's mind-boggling."
by
CD Rodgers (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 88 comments)
on Friday, August 3, 2007 at 11:54:47 PM
9 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 (
