 |
|
Add to My Group
|
January 3, 2008 at 11:53:58
Tipping Point on Impeachment is Approaching by Dave Lindorff Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
By Dave Lindorff Way back in October of 2005, when the publisher of St. Martin's Press contacted my agent and asked if I would do a book on impeaching President Bush, I remember thinking it was a wacky, if interesting, idea. Certainly almost nobody was talking about it. Not in the media, not in Congress, and not even at the occasional anti-war march. I took the job (who's going to turn down a decent advance?), but had in mind a book written with a light touch--a sense of humor--figuring that as evil as the Bush/Cheney regime was, there was also much to laugh at. In short order, though, things got serious. There was the "Scooter" Libby investigation into the admiinistration's outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame, and James Risen's belated story in the New York Times about the administration's illegal NSA spying operation on American citizens. And late that year, Rep. John Conyers, the minority leader on the House Judiciary Committee, issued a report (later a book) laying out the impeachable crimes of Bush and Cheney.
As I got down to writing, with my co-author Barbara Olshansky, it was starting to look like impeachment was a serious possibility. Over the months during the early spring that the book, The Case for Impeachment, went through the edit process, the case for impeachment grew even stronger, with news of presidential signing statements and reports that the president was claiming dictatorial powers to ignore laws passed by the Congress, and that he had authorized torture, in violation of international and US criminal law. As well, the extent of his and Cheney's lies about the reasons for invading Iraq became more evident by the day.
Then came the 2006 off-year Congressional election, and the new Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi's arch assertion that impeachment, in a Democratic House, would be "off the table."
Suddenly, no matter how serious the crimes and the abuses of power, no matter that a majority of Americans wanted impeachment hearings, impeachment became, for the power elite and the media, a non-issue. It would go nowhere in Congress, and it would not be reported in the newsmedia. Even when Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), finally, in April of 2007, finally introduced an actual bill of impeachment against Vice President Cheney, it was hardly even mentioned in the national news.
John Conyers, now Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, where impeachment hearings would be held, was reduced to an embarrassing puppet of Pelosi, repeatedly telling progressive groups that the president needed to be removed, and then just as repeatedly backing away from any kind of action. Kucinich's bill remains stalled in his committee, nine months after it was filed, though over that period, his bill has gained 24 co-sponsors.
But over the past month, things have begun to move. First, three members of the House Judiciary Committee, led by Rep. Robert Wexler, a six-term Democrat from south Florida, announced their intention to ask Conyers and Pelosi to start hearings on whether Cheney had committed impeachable crimes and abuses of power. Wexler and his colleagues, Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), are mainstream members of the House Democratic Caucus, not progressive fire-brands. They were later joined by Rep. Anthony Wiener.
Now, in what could be a tipping point for Cheney's fortunes, another member of the House has issued a call for impeachment hearings. This time it's Rep. Mike Michaud of Maine. What makes Michaud different is that he is a self-described "blue-dog" Democrat--one of those conservative members of the Democratic Party who often vote with Republicans, who originally supported the Iraq War (though he is now for cutting off funding for that criminal adventure), and who tend to look for bi-partisanship instead of political confrontation.
Despite his political predilections, Michaud, in a letter to Rep. Conyers, says:
I write today to request that you include vigorous hearings into the abuses of power by this Administration and include impeachment hearings of Vice President Richard Cheney in the Judiciary Committee schedule for the second session of the 110th Congress.
As you are aware, the House of Representatives voted on November 7th to send a resolution of impeachment of Vice President Cheney to the Judiciary Committee. I urge you to commence these proceedings. There is no doubt that at the very least this Administration has dangerously expanded the scope of executive authority and flaunted the constitutionally defined separation of powers.
Serious allegations have been raised against the Vice President regarding his role in mischaracterizing information that led to the invasion of Iraq, in similarly mischaracterizing information about Iran's nuclear program, the outing of a CIA agent as political retaliation, the abuse of detainees in contravention of the Geneva Conventions, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens. As a recent poll indicates, 70% of the American public believes that the Vice President has abused his power.
This is not an attack on Vice President Cheney or any other member of this Administration. Impeachment investigations must not be about the man or his personal life; they must focus on whether the office of the Vice President has illegally expanded its power or abused the law. Expansions and potential abuses of power by this Administration become precedents for future ones, which lead to further erosions of our constitutional rights.
When someone as conservative as Rep. Michaud calls for impeachment hearings, and accuses the vice president of abuse of power--an impeachable offense under the Constitution--it is no longer so easy for the media to write the idea off as "extremism" or as a "fringe" idea. It also makes it easier for other members of Congress to step up and take a stand in defense of the Constitution--perhaps even an independent-minded, principled Republican or two.
1 | 2
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
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 |
|
|
|
|
| 7 comments |
|
Kudos
to Dave Lindorff. He and David Swanson are heroes in my book. by George Washington (188 articles, 27 quicklinks, 189 diaries, 219 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 12:07:04 PM  (0+)
|
|
Though desperately needed to restore the rule of law, or to
restore any semblance of accountability, impeachment would need to get its impetus from outside the established political framework. Our system is simply incapable of fixing itself. It's far too corrupt. One can only be grateful for the few congresspersons willing to sign onto the different impeachment initiatives, for "hopeful signs" here and there; & for the journalism of people like Dave Lindorff. But the balance of forces is not going to allow impeachment to go forward. Far too many powerful interests depend on the perceived legitimacy of the status quo. Attempting to impeach would call the credibility of the entire US Establishment into question -- and these people will only allow that to happen over their dead bodies. Any serious examination of the crimes of Bush/Cheney would call into question the roles of the media and of both parties, & would directly portray the US government as guilty of serious (indeed, historic) war crimes. It is therefore clear that the US Establishment will resist any such examination, with all the resources at their command. Note that the (virtual) impeachment of Nixon was carefully framed to portray him as a "bad apple" in an otherwise "good" system. It was thus possible to go after him without impugning the entire US Establishment. With the crimes of Bush-Cheney, by contrast, the whole system (the media, both parties, the Pentagon) would be exposed as criminal. A bunch of Congressmen who are basically part of (& agents for) the Establishment are clearly not going to undertake that kind of revealing examination. Bush & Cheney can't be impeached, not because their crimes are not great enough, but because they are too great. Their crimes are basically the crimes of the US ruling class -- which basically put them in office (by fraud, let's recall) precisely to carry out those crimes. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 12:53:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I understand the sentiment, but it's defeatism
Of course many of the Bush/Cheney crimes are crimes of the ruling class. I would rate the invasion of Iraq in that category, since it was about imperialist control of the oil. Some of Nixon's crimes also rose to that level, he wasn't impeached for those--like the invasion of Cambodia. He did have articles of impeachment though relating to lesser crimes, like obstruction of justice. The same is likely to succeed against bush and Cheney, since they have crimes large and small. If the clamor for their impeachment grows, they will be tossed overboard before they do irreparable damage to the power elite and also before they do irrevocable damage to Republican party prospects. So I say push for hearings, so that as much of the abuse of power and criminality as possible can be exposed. Say what you will about the Nixon impeachment--it is the only time in the period since the onset of the National Security State in 1946 that the national security state was stopped in its tracks or even rolled back a bit. So let's try again, and hope for the same effect. Dave Lindorff by Dave Lindorff (438 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 193 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 1:06:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Powerful people
Saying that we should do nothing because of 'powerful forces' and/or 'powerful people' is tantamount to abandoment of our democratic system. We must fight these powerful forces and people, and continue to fight them at every opportunity. Years ago we began to fight them on the local level. It took 20 years, but we were finally successful. Because of our success, their attempts to undo what we accomplished are not being successful. Keep at it, folks. W, the people will prevail. by Shirley Bianchi (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 97 comments) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 1:22:32 PM (0+)
|
|
"We" have forced the issue
The Constitution gives us "the people" that power....those who oppose will either lead, follow or get the hell out of the way... I wouldn't give them good odds at winning another term in 2008 Praises to Kucinich, Wexler, Gutierrez, Baldwin and now Michaud....who are actually doing the job they were elected for....representing the people by Susan Nelsen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 287 comments) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 1:40:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Good luck with all that ...
I sincerely hope this will come about but I fear that the system this time is just too far gone. The elites have been perfecting their strategy since Nixon to make sure the same mistakes won't be made again. Not only have they taken over more of the legislative and media, the judiciary are infested with people of their ilk. The same people in this administration were around at the beginning and as entrenched as Cheney is I can't see him going down, unless he resigns due to health reasons with a pass on any charges, and as bad as the Bush family is I can't see them sacrificing the boy-king and serving him up with out something ugly going down. I'm more pessimistic. I sense the powers-that-be will shoehorn Hillary in as the Dem candidate and it really doesn't matter who the Repub one will be, I then see an orchestrated attack propelling the fear factor shoving any move to impeach aside. The attack(s) don't have to be 9/11 scale. Just enough to have the press give it maximum effect. And if HC or a Repub gets in the elite still have the person they want and the wars continue. I would look for somewhere about 2 to 4 months before the election for some sort of an attack, or sooner depending if the threat of impeachment gains momentum. I hope I'm wrong, but my instincts and history don't give me much reason for hope. It wouldn't be the first time elites would sacrifice innocents to further their agenda and get away with it. And as history as a judge they do so more often then not. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 2:01:02 PM (0+)
|
|
There're a couple of different things going on here
relating to Pelosi, who sits on the issue of impeachment. One is that Nancy will be reelected no matter what, because constituencies don't throw out powerhouses. What pork will Sheehan bring to the district? Secondly, I suspect that the light shining from a trial--even a trial that fails--will all too brilliantly illuminate Dem hands in cookie-jars as well as Republicans. Pelosi's knowledge of and acquiescence to torture is merely one example. The co-conspiratorial effect is all too obvious in a Democrat-controlled Congress that can't blow its own nose. FDR blew into the presidency on the hurricane of the '29 crash. It may well be that the only way to demolish what has come to be an elitist power-structure is worldwide economic collapse. The rich and powerful have been fine-tuning the screenplay for decades now and certainly we see the trailer for their movie in the current banking fraud. by Jim Freeman (108 articles, 53 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 386 comments) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 10:04:03 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
