"Bring the troops home" is neither great policy nor great politics. "Investigate the conspiracy to defraud the United States" is more to the point.

::::::::

Cindy Sheehan performed an important function for us who oppose this Bushite regime: she was the first to be able to get sympathetic coverage by the media for a popular movement to confront the Bushites.

It is time now, however, for us to move beyond the somewhat simple-minded mantra of the anti-war movement that she represents-- the mantra that focuses its agenda on the call for the (perhaps immediate) withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

Such a shift is necessary because the "bring the troops home" approach is not great either as policy or as politics.

It's not great policy because it shows no signs of being a well-considered judgment regarding what is the least-worst policy choice for the United States from among its very unattractive options. It seems to be, rather, a gesture of protest against the mess these Bushites have made in Iraq, and against the disgraceful way this mess has come about.

The situation in Iraq is undoubtedly a terrible mess. And the responsibility for this mess falls entirely upon the Bushites --who freely chose this war, arrogantly launched it, and then incompetently bungled it. And the Bushites should be held fully accountable for their sins, their crimes, and their blunders.

But just because it is a mess, it does not necessarily follow that simply pulling out is the best choice, even in moral terms, even for the Iraqis, even for Americans. The United States has both obligations and important interests at stake in this Iraqi mess the Bushites created. As Colin Powell told his president --that guy whose "strength of character" is that he never suffers doubt-- if you break it, you own it.

The fact that it's a disaster for us to be there doesn't preclude the possibility that a hasty American pull-out would be a still greater disaster. This is a conversation that we Americans need to have, and nothing remotely approaching a serious conversation on that subject has taken place. (Of course, in Bushite-ruled America, a truly honest and serious conversation has been impossible on any subject.)

Protesters shouting "bring the troops home" and a president making empty pronouncements about "completing the mission" do not constitute the conversation this country needs to have.

It's also not altogether good politics because it tends to reinforce the image of the opposition as being reflexively against the American use of force in the world. Ever since the Vietnam period, leaders on the right have been able to use this image effectively against their opponents on the left. The more frightened Americans are, the more effective has been this image of the Democratic Party as pacifist or anti-American wimps. And ever since 9/11, thanks in part to the assiduous work of the Bushites in cultivating fear, Americans have been afraid.

So what might be a better approach to this mess in Iraq?

To the extent that the call for the withdrawal of the troops is a way to compel the Bushites to admit what a mess they've made with their arrogance, their misjudgments, their lies, another and more powerful approach may now be available: we have before us displayed the stuff of scandal, and possible grounds for impeachment as well.

The Fitzgerald investigation has helped to bring to the center of the American stage the scandalous way --dishonest, dishonorable-- in which this leadership led the country into war.

These moral issues are what should be stressed. As I wrote in my piece on a "prophetic" social movement, we should wage this struggle not in those political terms that separate right and left but on the basis of those values that are shared by Americans of good will on both sides of the divide. The right and left have been divided for more than a generation on the American use of force in defense of its national interest, and on how much "honor" requires the country to see even its misguided adventures through rather than "cut and run." But on the question of whether it is OK for an American president to deceive and manipulate the American people in order to take the country to war-- on that there will be no difference between good liberals and good conservatives.

The scandal now displayed before us should be told again and again with the power of that prophetic voice that speaks moral truth to amoral power.

But there's more: in this scandal, there seem to be genuine grounds for impeachment. That is the argument of a persuasive piece written this past weekend by the former federal prosecutor, Elizabeth de la Vega.

Elizabeth de la Vega suggests that there is evidence of a crime: "The President's deceit is not only an abuse of power; it is a federal crime. Specifically, it is a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States."

She develops this idea by supplying this information about the meaning of that phrase, "conspiracy to defraud": "The Supreme Court has defined the phrase 'conspiracy to defraud the United States' as 'to interfere with, impede or obstruct a lawful government function by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.' In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement 'between two or more persons' to follow a course of conduct that, if completed, would constitute a crime. The agreement doesn't have to be express; most conspiracies are proved through evidence of concerted action. But government officials are expected to act in concert. So proof that they were conspiring requires a comparison of their public conduct and statements with their conduct and statements behind the scenes. A pattern of double-dealing proves a criminal conspiracy."

Then she expands on this: "Finally, 'fraud' is broadly defined to include half-truths, omissions or misrepresentation; in other words, statements that are intentionally misleading, even if literally true. Fraud also includes making statements with 'reckless indifference' to their truth."

It does not matter, in the law, de la Vega says, whether the goal of the conspiracy is laudable or reprehensible. (This makes the war policy itself irrelevant to the offense.) "It is possible," she says, "that the Bush team thought this goal was laudable and likely to succeed. It's also possible that they never formally agreed to defraud the public in order to attain it. But when they chose to overcome anticipated or actual opposition to their plan by concealing information and lying, they began a conspiracy to defraud - because, as juries are instructed, 'no amount of belief in the ultimate success of a scheme will justify baseless, false or reckless misstatements.'"

It would seem from de la Vega's presentation of the matter --her entire piece can be found at
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/103005Y.shtml

--that there may be as solid a basis for impeachment as with Nixon in Watergate.

But back in Nixon's time, it might be objected, the president was of one party while the Congress was controlled by his opposition. The Senate hearings then were essential to bringing the ingredients of Watergate out from under the rug. Now, by contrast, the Congress is controlled by the president's party. So what is the use, it might be asked, of talking about impeachment?

I would propose a two-fold answer to that question.

First, it is possible that sufficient public outrage would make it politically more advantageous for the Republicans in Congress to sacrifice the administration than to tie itself to its disgrace. (I would also mention here such factors as the belief in the rule of law, and the integrity of Republican lawmakers, but in the face of their utter silence about the ruthlessness and amorality of their leadership in recent years, even my idealism cannot bring me to add that as a potential factor here.)

Already, the public is voicing its disapproval of the administration on these issues. De la Vega writes: "According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted in June, 52% of Americans now believe the President deliberately distorted intelligence to make a case for war. In an Ipsos Public Affairs poll, commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org and completed October 9, 50% said that if Bush lied about his reasons for going to war Congress should consider impeaching him."

And pressure is being brought to bear through actions by the minority in the Congress: "Congressman Jerrold Nadler and others have recently written to Acting Deputy Attorney General Robert McCallum Jr. pointing out that the Plame leak is just the 'tip of the iceberg' and asking that Fitzgerald's authority be expanded to include an investigation into whether the White House conspired to mislead the country into war."

But even if the Republicans in Congress draw their wagons in a circle to block any efforts to hold the president accountable for what may indeed be a "high crime" --for, as many have observed, it is hard to imagine what would be a "higher" crime than one that fraudulently takes the country to war-- raising the issue in these terms is the right political stance. I doubt that those who say "bring the troops home now" believe that their cry will compel the president to bring them home, either. Worthwhile results can take various forms.

The call for impeachment is the better rallying cry because it puts the focus where it belongs-- i.e., on the fact that these rulers have dealt fraudulently with the American people. This indeed has been the heart of the matter all along: that the Bushites are moral frauds, people who pretend to be righteous while they have governed like gangsters.

Let's raise the cry: investigate these people for their conspiracy to defraud the United States; and if the evidence supports the suspicion, impeach them; and if the evidence supports the indictment, drive them out of office.

Authors Bio:
Andy Schmookler, an award-winning author, political commentator, radio talk-show host, and teacher, was the Democratic nominee for Congress from Virginia's 6th District. His new book -- written to have an impact on the central political battle of our time -- is WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST. His previous books include The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution, for which he was awarded the Erik H. Erikson prize by the International Society for Political Psychology.