The do-nothing Democrat-led Congress, fresh from handing President Bush the power to spy on Americans without any judicial oversight, and just weeks after providing full funding for the continuation of the bloody war and occupation in Iraq, is now mounting an all-out campaign to co-opt and bury the growing grass-roots campaign to impeach President Bush and Cheney.
With 19 members of the House now signed on as supporters of Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich’s bill to impeach Cheney (H Res 333), a group which includes six, or more than a quarter of the House Judiciary Committee, and with polls showing clearly that a majority of Americans want impeachment of the president and vice president, it is getting harder and harder for the party leadership to keep a lid on this movement.
Last week, one such effort was made, by having Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA), a known opponent of impeachment who showed his true colors by actively twisting the arms of key legislators in the Washington State Senate to prevent an impeachment resolution from coming to the floor there last spring, introduce a bill calling for the impeachment of… Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. This bill, which quickly garnered 20 co-sponsors, was a clear effort to siphon support away from Kucinich’s more serious Cheney impeachment bill. But as some of Inslee’s co-sponsors started to also sign on to the Kucinich Bill, and as the Kucinich Bill continued to gain co-sponsors, it has become obvious that the Inslee diversion wasn’t working. In fact, the very act of filing a bill to impeach Gonzales effectively neutralized all the arguments Inslee himself, as well as party leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others had been making to explain their opposition to impeachment. Obviously if impeaching Bush or Cheney would “detract from the Democrats’ important legislative agenda,” or “interfere with the effort to end the Iraq War” (sic), then so would an impeachment of Gonzales. Obviously, if impeaching Bush or Cheney would be “divisive” and “hurt Democratic chances in 2008,” then so would an impeachment of Gonzales.
So now the Democrats are trying another tack—having both houses introduce censure motions against Bush, Cheney and Gonzales.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has already filed a censure resolution in the Senate. This is now being joined by a parallel censure resolution in the House, being filed by Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY). The irony here is that both Feingold and Hinchey are among the most consistently liberal members of their respected chambers. Neither legislator is someone one would consider to be in the leadership of the Democratic Party, although both are fairly senior members of Congress. Both are also well aware that the president and vice president have committed grave impeachable offenses against the Constitution. Hinchey has said as much.
Reading Feingold’s proposed censure motion sounds like reading an impeachment bill. So does reading Rep. Hinchey’s explanation about why he is planning to file a censure motion. As Hinchey puts it:
"The American people have reached a breaking point with this administration and they are demanding that Congress step up and hold the president, vice president, and others in the executive branch responsible for their actions. While President Bush and Vice President Cheney continue to operate as if they are leaders of a monarchy, Congress should censure them and make it clear to this and future generations that their actions are entirely unacceptable. If Congress does not act to formally admonish this White House then the future of our democracy will be placed on a slippery slope in which other presidents may point to the actions of this administration as justification for further abuses of the Constitution. Congress cannot allow such abuses of power and law, which is why Senator Feingold and I will soon introduce these censure resolutions."
Hinchey says he will actually file two motions. The first would cite Bush and Cheney for lying about Iraqi WMDs and links to Al Qaeda, for failing to plan for the occupation, and for “distorting the reality” of the post-invasion situation “to the American people.” A second motion would cite Cheney and Bush and “other administration officials” for “launching the illegal NSA warrantless surveillance program” (which Congress just legalized, with the help of many Democratic votes), for instituting torture, for violating the Geneva Conventions, for politically motivated firings of prosecutors, for defying Congressional oversight, and for the issuing of signing statements “that amount to an excessive abuse of executive power.”
Calling Bush administrations actions “a sustained assault on our democratic republic,” Hinchey says, “Congress must firmly address this abuse and misuse of power.” But then he says the answer is “resolutions of censure” so that history will “show that Congress stood up to this administration and formally condemned it.”
The words are powerful but the remedy for those words is not censure. The remedy for abuses of power and for the high crimes described by Hinchey and by Feingold is impeachment.
In Feingold’s case, a censure motion might make sense, as it would allow Senate critics of Bush’s and Cheney’s clear abuses of power to go on record opposing and condemning the actions. The Senate, after all, has no role in impeachment, only in conviction and removal from office.
But Hinchey is another matter. Hinchey, to date, has not even signed on as a co-sponsor of Kucinich’s much narrower impeachment bill against Cheney.
One has to wonder why not, given his clear awareness of the seriousness of the president’s and vice president’s crimes. Perhaps Hinchey thinks impeachment has no chance because of the opposition to it by Pelosi and other House leaders. But by offering censure as an alternative, he is simply helping them kill off the growing call for impeachment by offering a lesser alternative.
The sad thing is that Hinchey’s censure motion, if it passes, besides giving members of Congress cover for not supporting a genuine impeachment bill, will do absolutely nothing to stop the Bush/Cheney destruction of the Constitution. Besides being laughed off by the White House, it will be viewed by future presidents not as a sign that Congress “stood up” and “formally condemned” the abuses, but rather that they have nothing to fear any more from Congress and the impeachment clause.
Hinchey’s censure motion will be the final cut of the knife in the gelding of Congress. ---------------------------------- DAVE LINDORFF is co-author, with Barbara Olshansky, of “The Case for Impeachment: the Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and available now in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
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
Those that censure when impeachment is required will likely get their wish and put themselves on the historical record as examples of ineffectual opposition.
Frankly, if Feingold and Hinchley acknowledge impeachable offences have occurred and yet are unwilling or unable to support and defend the Constitution in accordance with their oath, it would be better that they resign and get out of politics altogether.
Let history censure the censurers as the ineffectually American Chamberlains they are.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1041 comments)
on Monday, August 6, 2007 at 7:14:41 PM
Not only is no one going to resign, but unless we start speaking with one voice to find replacements for these folks, after all is said and done when a new congress is installed next time around it will be the same folks taking their seats. I have no objection to advocating impeachment, but at this stage, when those who have the power to impeach have turned their backs on us, we also should be actively defending our country by finding qualified people to represent us. If we don't start now, all this talk is going to be for nothing. We can't impeach anyone. But we still have the power to elect our own representatives. If we don't use the power we have, all we're doing is blowing smoke. Asking someone to resign is rediculous. Our responsibility is to fire them. That takes work. It's one thing no one can stop us from doing. The ball is in our court. When are we going to move in its direction?
by
Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments)
on Monday, August 6, 2007 at 9:36:22 PM
The Democrats united in conviction COULD in fact impeach ANYONE in the lower house. If THEY do not, then it is because they WILL not, not because THEY cannot.
If any particular Democrat will not vote for impeachment then that is a matter for THAT representative and that representatives constituents to whom that representative took a personal oath to support and defend the Constitution. Not PART of it. ALL of it.
Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution does not proscribe censorship or finger waggling or summary execution it proscribes impeachment. Censorship in lieu of impeachment is a FAILURE to support and defend Article 2 Section 4.
It is easy to say as a citizen that you WOULD advocate for impeachment but words are cheap. It is easy to say that you will do tomorrow what should be done today.
Who is your representative? Where do they stand on impeaching Bush on the matter of the illegal unconstitution invasion of Iraq or on any other ground? Do you know?
Where I stand is this. I am Australian. I have been anti-American since the re-election of Bush post the invasion of Iraq and I will remain anti-American until Bush is impeached and lawfully and bloodlessly repudiated.
If the US citizen does not impeach Bush using your world class system of accountability then I say may all your september 11's be as 2001 for as citizens you are no longer innocent because as empowered citizens you have innocent Iraqi blood on your hands.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1041 comments)
on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 1:06:52 AM
We must get in the street, (prefrbly in front of your Reps house) to DEMAND they sign onto 333.
Of course we will run non-appeasers, next year. They dont all stand for reelection. We must take 333 to the people ourselves, TODAY. The MSM has completely ignored it, thus giving the pussies cover to imply there is not overwhelming support to impeach, try and hang cheney, the most treasonous bastard in mankinds sordid drama.
I read the WaPo daily. Not one frickin word. I have picketed my Rep, Elijah Cummings, MD, in front of his office. The positive feedback from the public was amazing! Inspiring! Motivational! And just a shitload of fun. So many questions from an intentionally dumbed down public, many marching right up to the cowards office to voice their opinion.
Obviously polls are a tool in the Matrix handy toolbox to help them control our every thought process, granted. I rarely mention them and never take them seriously. But, when they say 54 % want dick impeached....what does that say? The real number is much higher. Many Republicans agree.
We do not have time to dick around. Iran's "Gulf of Tonkin" moment could come any day. We are just one natural disaster or false flag terror event away from their long wet dreamed of police state. Read the Presidential Directive 51, signed on May 9. Read the Executive Directive signed July 17. Why wont they let DeFazio (on homeland commitee) see the COG plans?
EVERY MINUTE, EVERY HOUR WE SIT ON OUR ASS THINKING UP EXCUSES NOT TO DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION AND PLANET FROM THESE MADMEN.....we come closer to the time we will no longer have the ability to fight them. NOW is that time. When sober "conservatives" like Paul Craig Roberts say there may not be an election in 08.....it is time to look in the mirror...........think about your great grand children. Will they be cursing your timid, chickenshit head-in-the -sand capitulation
or.................signing songs to your heroism?????
by
CamusRebel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 79 comments)
on Monday, August 6, 2007 at 10:50:31 PM
I think, like Perosi impeachment is a pipe dream too many people have too many vested interests at stake for it to happen unfortunately. Unless you can find the smoking cannon there isn't enough time to do it. I think we will have to settle for the historical note that Gdubbya was the worst pres ever.
I doubt that you'll get enough votes to impeach him given the counter I see is crawling towards 100k it simply isn't going to be enough. Most elibible to voters simply don't care enough they are too busy consuming like good little automatons that they are.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments)
on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 10:57:39 PM
7 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 (
