After a year of running around flogging my book The Case for Impeachment (St. Martin’s Press, 2006), I’ve had to give a lot of thought to a question I have gotten over and over from radio hosts to ordinary people concerned about the fate of the country and our Constitution. The question: Why haven’t the Democrats already impeached the president for all these crimes, abuses of power and assaults of the Constitution?
I used to chalk it up to cowardice, but I’m no longer happy with that answer. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) may be a politician’s politician, but she hasn’t lacked for courage. She has, for example, always been ready to stand for taking a tough line on civil liberties in China, when the corporatocracy has been pressing the government to cozy up to China.
It’s also hard to buy the idea that so many progressive members of the House--people like John Conyers (D-Mich.), Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Chakka Fattah (D-Penna.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)--all of whom clearly understand the nature of the president’s crimes, could be afraid to submit bills of impeachment--indeed that all the progressive members of the Democratic Party in the House are so afraid to take a stand on impeachment that not one has dared to submit an impeachment bill. (Only Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) has taken that step, and she waited until she had already been voted out of office and then filed her impeachment bill in the last week of the 109th Congress.)
That said, there are some things I do know.
First of all, there are members of Congress who understand that the president should be impeached. Chief among these is Rep. Conyers. Back in the last Congress, Conyers, as ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee--the committee that would hold impeachment hearings if a bill of impeachment were submitted--held unofficial hearings into some of the president’s high crimes and misdemeanors, which resulted in a book, George W. Bush Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Coverups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying. The book is a clear call for impeachment. Conyers also filed a bill in the 109th Congress which called for creation of a “select committee” to investigate possible impeachable crimes by the Bush administration. It ultimately boasted 39 co-sponsors, including Reps. Rangel, Fattah and Waters.
I also know that midway through the 2006 election year, Rep. Pelosi began telling reporters, at every opportunity, that if Democrats were elected to a majority in the House in the November election, there would be no impeachment effort--impeachment, in her words, would be “off the table.”
And so it has been, at least inside the Beltway. And not only has it been put off the table--Pelosi and the party leadership have been actively working behind the scenes in an unconscionable effort to undermine grassroots campaigns to put it back on, via state legislative resolutions. In both New Mexico and Washington state, Democratic party leaders from Washington have put the screws on local legislative leaders to keep the issue of impeachment from even making it to an open floor debate in a legislative chamber. Clearly, progressive members of Congress have also been pressured not to submit impeachment bills.
In part, I think this is all happening because Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership have bought the Republican Party’s spin--that impeachment would be “good for Republicans” because it would allegedly “energize the Republican base” that supports President Bush no matter what. Maybe that is technically true, but that base is less than 30 percent of the voting public, and it ignores that fact that impeachment would also energize the Democratic, progressive base, and might well also energize the libertarian base, all of which collectively would far outnumber any possible energized reactionary base.
This leads me to what I think is the real reason the Democratic leadership is opposing impeachment--a reason I find thoroughly disgusting and unworthy of the party of Roosevelt.
I believe that Pelosi, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), Howard Dean and the rest of the leaders of the Democratic Party, have concluded that the Republican Party and the Bush administration have so screwed up that they have lost the support of the majority of Americans, and that all Democrats need to do to win the White House and a bigger margin in the House and Senate in 2008 is to let them continue to screw up, aided by selective Congressional investigations designed to further embarrass them.
While Pelosi has talked grandly about passing a progressive agenda of bills in the 110th Congress, the Democrats know that they cannot pass any meaningful progressive legislation. Their majority in both houses is razor thin and could never survive a veto, and even if they could, by watering down their bills, lure enough Republican votes to override a veto, President Bush would invalidate any bill that made significant change or reform by just issuing one of his unconstitutional and illegal “signing statements” asserting that as commander in chief in the war on terror he doesn’t have to adhere to the Constitution.
So what Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid plan to do is pass legislation that they know won’t go into law, like the minimum wage bill, or global warming laws, and then go to the voters in 2008 saying, “We would have gotten these bills into law, if only we had more Democrats in the Congress, or a Democratic president.”
They’re doing the same thing with the war. If Democrats wanted to end the war, they could do so immediately by refusing to pass a supplemental funding measure to support it, but they don’t want to do this. It’s not that they fear being called unpatriotic--hell, with 70 percent of the public wanting the war to end immediately, nobody would fault Congress for pulling the plug. Even the troops who are stuck over there wouldn't be upset to see the funding that keeps them there terminated. But ending the war would leave the Democrats without their best issue going into the 2008 national election: Bush’s war. So instead of ending the war, they vote to oppose it, but then continue to fund it. (Rep. Emanuel has actually said publicly that it would be good for Democrats if the war were to continue through November 2008.)
It’s a supremely cynical campaign ploy, and it’s also behind the strategy of keeping impeachment “off the table.”
If Bush were impeached, and witnesses began getting called in under oath to expose his and Vice President Dick Cheney’s lies and deceit in tricking the nation into war, his illegal NSA spying activities, his obstruction of justice in the Valerie Plame outing investigation, his authorization of torture, his obstruction of efforts to combat global warming, his criminal failure to provide troops with armor or to plan for an Iraq occupation or to respond to the disaster in New Orleans, and his usurpation of the powers of Congress and the Judiciary in invalidating over 1200 laws passed by the Congress, it would almost certainly lead to his (and Cheney’s) removal from office and to a prompt end to the war.
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
The Democratic leadership is playing a very dangerous game by failing to file articles of impeachment as any meaningful reading of the Constitution demands. The Bush-Cheney administration is a criminal enterprise and will not shrink from trumping-up a "terrorist" incident to "justify" a case for suspending the Constitution, declaring martial law, neutering Congress and postponing the next election indefinitely, thereby establishing him as dictator for life. Our country's only hope for continuation as a constitutional republic's to impeach both of these bastards NOW!
by
Robert R. Regl (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 13 comments)
on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 11:20:26 AM
Actually you were right the first time. They lack the courage. But when you talk about courage you have to consider what it is they are afraid of. They are afraid of losing their jobs or their postions of power within the party. In other words they are afraid of losing whatever is important to them. But I'll tell you this: what they are afraid of losing is more important to them than losing the Constitution. Time is wasting and every minute that goes by makes them complicit in the crimes. Many are afraid now to impeach because they have already lost their moral authority and are themselves guilty for allowing so much of the carnage that has already taken place.
They are afraid of admitting they were wrong, that they lied to us and to themselves, that they were beholden to AIPAC, that crimes have been committed because of their negligence... they are afraid of the truth. In short, they lack the moral courage to admit the truth and take responsibility for their participation. Soon it will not only be Congress that is complicit. We all will be complicit. Maybe we're all destined to know what it felt like to be a German citizen after the war when they were forced to look at the concentration camps and be confronted with the truth... that it wasn't that they didn't know... but that they didn't want to know, didn't have the courage to face the truth. One day soon the tears will flow, but the tears won't bring back any time soon what has been lost.
by
Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments)
on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 11:27:28 AM
If criminals are tolerated in high office, all of society
inevitably becomes criminal. Permitting hoodlums like Bush & Cheney to continue in office is for all intents & purposes like abandoning the Constitution & declaring that from now on, the US is to be run on the same principles as the Mafia.
If the current US govt is incapable of removing gangsters like Bush & Cheney from office, as explicitly provided for by the Constitution, then the government deserves to be overthrown; the alternative is the population's submission to dictatorship (meaning, a govt that has placed itself above & beyond the law; a govt that has seized absolute power). If the Democrats refuse to move against Bush & Cheney, they are part of what needs to be overthrown.
Though I have a lot of respect for Dave Lindorff, I think he's being somewhat too generous in his analysis of the Democrats' motivations here. The reason Pelosi & Co aren't moving to impeach or to stop the war is that they aren't seriously opposed to Bush's general program. While a few Dems like Conyers & Kucinich are quite clear on the fact that Bush-Cheney are criminals, the Pelosi's and Reid's don't think of it in that way. In the end, they serve the same financial oligarchy that Bush does. Pelosi does not personally believe that the US role in Iraq is "immoral." Her main reservations about it stem from the war's unpopularity & failure. As a party, Democrats are wholly subordinate to the interests of the capitalist class, hence not at all opposed to ruthless imperialism. They merely object to unsuccessful, poorly-planned & widely unpopular imperialism, as it makes capitalist rule more messy & difficult.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 12:20:53 PM
I agree with RichM here. But I think, there is a more primitive connection- both Bushits and Pelosi and Co dance under the surveilliance of the same puppetmasters. They are both tools. The puppetmasters needed Bush to stop the country from becoming a real nation which it was going at in 1990s. Now his job is done, the brake mechanism is in place and it seems to them that the time has come to open the door a little bit, just a little bit. Impeachment cannot be a part of it because Bush belongs to the untouchables. His family is too rich. Clinton was not that rich, an outsider first and not belonging, thus in the grand scheme of things he could be attacked- they knew that he could not really retaliate. Bush can. The bastard is vindictive and even if he is out of office he still can make a lot of harm to them. Those are the rules of the game in those circles. Rich people and super- rich people have their own rules. For them those rules are everything; they do not care for laws. Laws are nothing but toys to them- they can change those if they want to. Belonging is everything. Bush did not lie when he called the elite his supporters. They are.
by
Mark Sashine (50 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3453 comments)
on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 1:02:25 PM
Replace the Speaker with someone that really cares
The Democrats will be replaced if they don't start showing they care about the people they represent rather than their own interests first. I for one will not vote of the Democrats if they don't act NOW and start the impeachment. The US Attorney stuff is just a diversion from the big items like impeachment and the war in Iraq. EVERYTHING ELSE IS SECONDARY. The Speaker is first and only a politician. We need a leader that will lead the charge for change.
by
tginmn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 54 comments)
on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 3:48:04 PM
The problem is that the Democratic leadership is taking orders from the same "people" that the Republicans are.
The Zionist lobby is pulling out all the stops. It's now or never for the implementation of the master plan.
A recent event occured that should indisputably settle the matter once and for all. According to Pat Buchanan (quoting the "Washington Times"):
"Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received a smattering of boos when she badmouthed the war effort during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the Democratic leadership, responding to concerns from pro-Israel lawmakers, was forced to strip from a military appropriations measure a provision meant to weaken President Bush's ability to respond to threats from Iran."
So you see, the intent is, and always was, to smash Iran (and likely Syria et al.). That's why Bush has not been impeached. That's why Bush is invulnerable and will not be impeached. He wields the full power of the Zionist lobby. Not a hair on Bush's head will be harmed as long as he remains faithful to the agenda of the Zionist lobby.
by
jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments)
on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 4:42:05 PM
That's right, it gives Bush the power to call whoever he dislikes a terrorist and after that that person will be sent of to guantanamo bay and be tortured. So... of course they don't dare to impeach the man. Of course this won't be a popular measure so he hasn't used it yet. But as soon as someone dares to really start the impeachment proceedings he will use his powers.
by
Han (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 196 comments)
on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 4:44:47 PM
If Bush and Cheney were impeached, Pelosi would become President. Pelosi may or may not want to be president but that would cause a serious rift within the Party. I believe that 1. either Pelosi must be chagrined into taking action so she can claim she "had to go for impeachment" or 2. She owes too many democrats to be President. or 3. You may be right. Either way, it's all a shameful way to represent your constituency. They should be ashamed of themselves. That's why I'm pitching The Liberal Party of America.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 4:48:50 PM
the Democrats would not allow Pelosi to become president. For one thing, there'd be no chance of a removal in the Senate under those circumstances. The model is Nixon's impeachment. When it looked like Nixon was going down, leaving Agnew the likely president, a Republican AG indicted him and got him out of the way. The same thing would happen to Cheney, since he's just as unpopular as was Agnew, even among Republicans, and they wouldn't want him heading the party as it faced 2008. Then the Democrats would allow Bush to nominate a place holder to replace Cheney--probably the minority leader of the House.
by
Dave Lindorff (341 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 157 comments)
on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 5:33:31 PM
. . . and all that Rep. Kucinich need do is to prepare and submit his own version of it to Rep. Conyers's committee. Meantime, Kucinich can gain some of the people's perspective by perusing my e-serialized book of commentary/satire now posted as "The Bu$ch-Cheezey Impeachment Chronicles" at http://www.bushbusiness.com/Bryant_OP.htm .
by
LarryWBryant (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 57 comments)
on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 5:17:00 PM
They should not impeach. It is not a harsh enough penalty. Instead, they should appoint a Special Prosecutor and go after them as the sonsofabitches went after Clinton. Get a Gila Monster who will bite them day after day tearing chunks of prestige and credibility away with each chomp, day after day, week after week, month after month, right up to election day, and hang on until the death. Get the roughest toughest bastard on the planet or find one on another planet if necessary and then when the Bushites are indicted, convicted, if he is still president, then and only then, impeach. However, I will say there isn't anyone I have seen in politics with the stones to go after the Bushites. They are afraid, they are cowards. They proved that during the 2000 election, the 2004 election and after winning, even now. The only guy I would trust to go get'em is Elliot Spitzer. He would flush them were the others of their kind deserve to be flushed.
If you have ever played high stakes poker, which I have, when you try to protect your winnings, when you play it safe, you are guaranteed to lose. Mike Ditka and other Bears coaches learned that the hard way after the Super Bowl win, he blew several chances by protecting leads instead of going for the kill, and the leads withered and they lost, time after time. The Dems don't want to lose their lead by doing something the voters may not like or that Bush will come after them about, so they are protecting their lead by playing the middle of the road and Gore and Kerry did, and the result will be that those who worked so hard to get them in will get frustrated and pissed and abandon them for Nader or simply not vote.
I have to say, that if they do not go for the Special Prosecutor, then they risk the ironic backlash of being dumped in 2008.
Let Elliot Spitzer go after them as Special Prosecutor or let him run in our party in 2008.
by
Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1311 comments)
on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 7:46:20 PM
"""They should not impeach. It is not a harsh enough penalty. Instead, they should appoint a Special Prosecutor and go after them as the sonsofabitches went after Clinton. """
Keep your eye on the ball. Clinton made Bush look like a mouskatere. Clinton should have been impeached for dozens of reasons they never toutched on. Look at the 911 comm. report page 140. Clinton was a bad pres. I said it before and I'll say it again. TIME FOR A THIRD PARTY. that's the only way to stop this two party political BS. Only a hand full of congress decided not to vote for the war. Now they want to blame the Pres. They are ALL responsible and should ALL be removed.
by
Bob Fitzgerald (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 62 comments)
on Friday, March 23, 2007 at 6:14:09 PM
Impeachment is off the table for the same reason ending the war is off the table. Democrats serve the same masters as Republicans, the plutocratic owners of the Military Industrial Complex who have made billions of dollars in profits with expectations of making hundreds of billions more. Anyone who threatens to end their gravy train will be destroyed if not murdered.
by
rabblerowzer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments)
on Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 9:54:19 AM
If you claim they have commited crimes, the perhaps it might be a good idea to enumerate specific instances of these crimes and identify alleged criminals. A citizen can do this.
If you want the crimes spelled out in detail, just order "The Case from Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office," (St. Martin's Press, 2006). You can read reviews of the book on my website (www.thiscantbehappening.net). That site also has a link to a summary of most of the impeachable crimes. Look for the link to "10 reasons to impeach".
I can't be expected to lay them out every time someone wants a list...
by
Dave Lindorff (341 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 157 comments)
on Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 12:33:23 PM
18 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 (
