The Power of Inspection and the Claim of Impeachment

Last night's Democratic debate marked the first time a number of candidates have spoken sanely and frankly about the Cheney-Bush design for a world war. Tim Russert asked each candidate to "pledge" to prevent Iran from developing the capacity to make a nuclear weapon. A mindless and demagogic request, and an attempt to corral the Democratic party into the militarism which holds the Republican candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) captive and cheering. Russert was out of line and someone should have told him so. Yet the responses were instructive. Hillary Clinton vowed to do all she could to prevent Iran from acquiring a weapon; when that proved not ripe enough for her questioner, she made it clear she would not please him by upping the ante. What he was after was a pledge to initiate a war by bombing Iran.

Joe Biden explained to Russert that the Middle East holds perils more ominous than the possible attainment of a nuclear weapon by Iran some years from now. Biden did not mention Israel's 200 nuclear weapons, or its second-strike capacity from submarines. He did bring up Pakistan: another nuclear power, and one whose upheaval would have consequences the U.S. cannot possibly reckon. By his answer, Biden was contributing to the education of the public. They surely hadn't heard before a sober comparison of Pakistan with Iran, whether from Tim Russert or his colleagues at ABC or what remains of CBS.

The education continued with a fine response by John Edwards that addressed the Cheney-Bush pattern of saber-rattling against Iran. Edwards showed how the pair were following the same protocol that created a stupefied popular consensus against Iraq in 2003. He also used the word "neocon": a word that many of his listeners might have a broad idea of; more of them, probably, a dim and faint idea. The mere mention of this faction constitutes of a public service, now that they are running not only the president's foreign policy but the policy apparatus of four Republican candidacies (Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson). Next time, Edwards ought to give a name or two, and connect it with a policy. For the individuals he has in mind are as persistent and remorseless as they are destructive. Their previous field of exercise was Nicaragua.

Chris Dodd offered a vivid recollection of the disaster of Iran-Contra when he recalled his part in negotiating a diplomatic end to the artificially induced civil war in Nicaragua: a war that was begun in America's name but funded and commandeered in defiance of the law. If Dodd alludes to Nicaragua again, he might mention that the earlier war was fought by American proxies with the tactics of terrorism; that it was a war that ripped apart a society and by its end had killed 30,000; and that it was run from the department of state by the same reckless functionary, Elliott Abrams, who pulls the levers now on American policy in the Middle East. The next time you hear (Dodd could easily say) about an assassination that heats up civil strife in Lebanon with profit to no party in Lebanon, or the latest speculative charge against Iran by the White House, or reports of advanced armaments suddenly in use by Fatah militias, or an Israeli bombing of a supposed nuclear site in Syria, where no evidence is given and no radioactive residue appears--be forewarned that you are seeing the handiwork of Elliott Abrams. This is an administration that has everything to fear from the diffusion of facts. But the facts need to be recited slowly, and the history needs to be recounted with patience.

Dennis Kucinich spoke the word impeachment. Whatever the Democrats may do, it is an idea the party would be irresponsible not to consider. No one who has read the Constitution through the minds of the founders, and followed the history of the past seven years, can doubt that the vice president and the president have committed impeachable offenses. The violation of FISA and the development of a secret policy for circumventing the FISA court are only the clearest instances. The withdrawal of the U.S., in secret, from the Geneva Conventions, embodies the same insolence and arrogation. The power of inspection by the Senate and the claim of impeachment have long been understood as the indispensable checks against abuse of power by an ambitious executive.

Against impeachment, there is this to be said, that the majority apparently lack the votes to make it succeed. Yet Nancy Pelosi showed a remarkable absence of political mind when, as the leader of a new majority in a critical time, facing a president out of control, she declared that impeachment was not an option. You don't reassure an opponent--especially an opponent who understands nothing but the language of force--that the one weapon he rightly fears has been taken out of your arsenal. Besides, there are powers of inspection short of impeachment, which the Democratic Congress has been inexplicably backward in using. Dick Cheney has never held a press conference, and has seldom been asked to answer a question. His chief of staff, David Addington, is unknown on Capitol Hill. Why have they never been called to testify? Say by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (for misconduct in the control of post-invasion Iraq)? Or the Senate Intelligence Committee (for the slanting of estimates on Iraq in 2002-03, on Iran in 2006, on Syria in 2007)? Or by the Judiciary Committee (for overturning in secret the constitutional ban on torture and the legal restrictions on domestic surveillance)? When one thinks of the public education on the war in Vietnam that was supplied by the Foreign Relations Committee under Senator William Fulbright, nothing except timidity and a failure of self-respect can explain the omission of such hearings today.

The preferred way in to a world war, as Alastair Crooke pointed out in a recent and disturbing article, may not be a direct attack on Iran, but a "back door" through any of the potential flash-points the vice president has been preparing in the region. It may come from Lebanon, or from the Kurds, or an alarm set off by Israel and the argument that we have to cover what Israel "had" to do. All fanatics are dangerous; and not all of them know this about themselves; but the fanatics of this administration and their propagandists, do indeed know it, and they have begun to turn "dangerous" into a term of praise. They truly believe the surest way to reform the Middle East is to revolutionize the entire region through the engineered collapse of several governments at once, or in close succession. A much larger war triggered by accident, and a mounting series of escalations, would also bury their responsibility in the confusion, chaos, and desolation that followed.

But to carry it off they need the American people to be their accomplices. And that is where the salutary shadow of impeachment may matter. Even if it remains a discussion only, the threat could remind the public, and give notice to TV presenters innocent of political knowledge, that there is an unpleasant smell, a suspicion probably worth exploring, about the familiar crooked path to the next war. There is something finally neither admirable nor laughable about the men who have done these things to our country.

Comments

[cadawa]

Having a gasbag like Tim Russert host the political debates should raise a nationwide red flag. Russert is the oligarch's errand boy who was hired to host a non-debate debate.

Iran is a signatory of the nuclear non proliferation treaty. Unlike the US, Iran is in compliance with its treaty obligations. The US defied its obligations when Bush and Congress decided to build a new generation of nukes and to change the status of nuclear weapons from a weapon of last resort to an offensive battlefield weapon.
Iran has threatened no one and has not attacked another nation in 250 years.
Israel who is pimping for a showdown with Iran is not a signatory, has a huge arsenal of atomic weapons and attacks everyone, all the time.
It isn't difficult to see the real danger to world peace lies.

Impeachment? Hell yes! Nancy Pelosi has no legal right to gut the Constitution of power given to the people to protect them against an illegitimate government.
Impeachment is an investigation and indictment. The "vote" canard is the same as saying you won't indict a criminal, before discovery and before the evidence has even been heard, because you've decided the jury won't convict them.
Nancy is in violation of her oath of office to defend and uphold the Constitution as is every member of congress who supports her. Unless they impeach immediately, they should all pay the consequences for betraying their constitutents and the nation.

[Seath]

Unfortunately there really isn't enough time left to impeach either of these criminals. If we were really focused on what should happen we would try to get them turned over to world justice somewhere and have to answer for their many war crime and crimes against humanity after their term were over. These people all need to be put in prison and striped of their wealth. That would be the only way to cleanse the body politic in this country. If one of his smirking goons is reading this they will just laugh because this country is too far gone to have real justice. But I can dream. Along as their is a Pelosi in power they are all safe.

[MoNut]

Ms. Pelosi's idea of "accountability" has to be the most asinine of everything asinine ever.

Amazing the discrepency of her rhetoric before Speakership to her performance since....

Eerie the glaring similarity of Ms. Pelosi's political tactics to what Ms. Hillary is trying to play on the people now.

Firstly, impeachment is NOT Ms. Pelosi's to "take off the table". It's a tool of the PEOPLE granted by the CONSTITUTION... NOT a "tool of the Pelosi".

Secondly, what's her basis for these hearings if she's already concluded the outcome will never amount to anything but showboating for no more than the illusion of oversight and accountability and more political rhetoric and divisiveness to boost the probability of a more profitable election season?

Thirdly, what does Ms. Pelosi's legacy thus far say about this "historical first for women" carrot that's continuously being dangled this election?

Fourth, Ms. Pelosi should've been impeached the minute she took it upon herself to amend the Constitution of the People. I'd venture to say that, in itself, violated her oath.... and her (in)actions and continuation since borders on the treasonous.

Fifth, is Ms. Clinton afraid she'll melt upon mere mention of the word "Impeachment"? Our "girl" with the "historical goods", it seems, needs to declare those "goods" she's vaguely dangling. Like Pelosi, the scent emanating from her has the same pungent characteristics of bullsh!t.

[Mr.Smartey]

I'm taking odds that Bush won't ever even get close to impeachment.

But if Hillary is elected (a BIG if), she won't make it through 2011, after the landslide GOP victories in the midterms.

[MissingAmerica]

It is time to impeach, and it's not too late. Maybe we can't get enough GOP to sign on, and maybe it would take a year, but it would make it perfectly clear that the American people are not in agreement with Bush policy. It would make it clear that we are against the downward spiral into which he has set this country, and it will indicate that we will never tolerate this from another administration. It will show anyone coming in with the same destructive designs that they won't get by with nearly as much, and they won't reign nearly as long. It is time to put King George on the fire and use impeachment to fan the flames. He's not a brave man, nor is he an intelligent man; he is an arrogant, fearful, ignorant man who will really have the air taken out of his sails. Impeachment must begin now! That would be the greatest Christmas present we Americans could hope for!

[givemycountryback]

It's too late. It would take a year to get rid of them. They would be so upset like little kids god knows what they would do. I hate to say, but whoever voted for this retard is getting what they deserve. He is not my president, I would sooner vote for the local dog catcher than him. There is not a repug in office anywhere that is not a selfish mean spirited jerk.

[Ravenlea]

Great article. Thank you. I can't understand why we are not impeaching Bush and Cheney. Thank God at least Dennis Kucinich has the courage and integrity to be pushing that forward. I frankly, don't want to vote for anyone for president who doesn't have the integrity and regard for law and justice to demand impeachment for these criminals. What does it say about them? What does it say about us that we continue to give free reign to criminal, conscienceless, maniacs who threaten not only our own safety but the safety of the whole world?

[Blink2X]

Anyone that cannot see what is coming from this this crew has blinders on. We will be in another unwarranted conflagration before we know it. They already have their authorization set thanks to this mamby-pamby congress. Once this starts there will be no turning back. Why would they be looking for revamped Bunker Busters in the new appropriations bill if they did not intend to use them....hmmmmm no need for them in Afghanistan or Iraq so...Connect the dots. And this Congress is going to sit by and let these guys go unchecked?! I for one will not be surprised to learn one morning of the "necessary" airstrikes they will launch. Someone there needs to standup very tall, very soon. Pelosi needs to go away.

[Macready]

Very insightful . .. .thank you for posting .. .impeachment is the only way forward for the US to advert yet another illegal blood bath for no other reason than to further the neo con agenda. The Democrats have shown themselves to be both cowardly and compllicit.

I agree the public needs to be educated . . . it seems many of them do not read and do not take advantage of the other news sources available to them other than the MSM.

Impeachment is the only way to stop this criminal regime . . . Iran is not a threat and it would be a good thing if our Democratic prez candidates would talk about israel's nuclear capacity . . . and who gave it to them ... it would also be a good idea if they highlighted israel's UN violations and human rights abuses ... but somehow I doubt they will do this . . . the big joke of course is that while America tries to lie itself into believing they are exporting democracy . . they are in fact showing the entire world and not just the Middle East what a rotten state democracy is in the US with its sell out to a corporate ideology that refuses to take into account the needs of its citizens and is in the process of destroying not only its military but itself.

[Bongborg]

I'm getting a little tired of the "I'm a Republican but not a Neo-con" bullshit.

If you are an enabler, you are part of the problem, and that goes for some Democrats as well, but it applies to all the Republicans with the possible exception of Ron Paul.

[Nonamnesiac]

Because neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism, at least the versions exemplified by the DLC and Cheney respectively, both require military control over significant resource pools, the Dems will not move impeachment/removal despite the overwhelming evidence of treason and high crimes and misdemeanors on the part of Bush and Cheney. In other words, the Dems, albeit for different reasons, are fully supportive of Bush's invasion of Iraq and a military attack on Iran. That explains the 92-3 votes in favor of Bush's initial war budget without any restrictions on him, the bi-partisan support for the four Trample on the Constitution Acts (Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Protect America Act, and soon, the FISA Reform Act with retroactive exoneration for the criminal and civil violations of law by thge telecoms), and the Kyl-Lieberman attack Iran resolution (all of which receive about half of the Democratic votes in the Senate).

Even people like Obama and Edwards -- not necessarily conscious, DLC version neo-liberals -- have, for political reasons and because they do not understand what they have signed on to, have adopted group-think mentality with the DLC neo-libs and therefore have reflexive actions no different from Hillary (2013??????????).

The Dems are not cowards, especially given Bush's 24% approval ratings. He doesn't have the political or moral stature to be a bully. They are conscious enablers of Bush's war policies because, for different reasons, they believe military action to protect the oil and expand their vision of globalism, is necessary.

[houseoftwits]

Impeachment is not going to happen; they likely won't even threaten it. Why?

Fear, fear, fear.

(1) You have to impeach Cheney FIRST - hell, give him the White House for 2 seconds and he'll put us under Martial Law - no impeachment for him!
(2) If Cheney's impeached, Shrub picks new VP.
(3) Shrub is impeached, VP takes Oval Office.
(4) Incumbent VP is in office at election time.

I think the Dems are too freaking SCARED to face an incumbent. After all, it'd be just our luck for Shrub to pick a VP that's clean enough to hold the office until election day.

All we can hope for is prosecution later, but I'll bet cash that the next POTUS will decide the public will see it as "sour grapes" and refuse to prosecute - or even investigate...

[Nezua]

IMPEACHMENT. yes. thank you. for SO many reasons. if ever a time there was, that time is ahora.

[realpolitic]

Yes, much of the role of these so-called neocons is hidden from the public. These ideologues, from Elliot Abrams to Doug Feith to others, should be held accountable for their misdirections, propaganda, and lies masquerading as intelligence feed to the American public. They are an incestous group who talk mainly to each other and are somehow insulated from critics and accountability.

Our country should either have war crimes' trials or, at least, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission as did South Africa, to find out how the intelligence was manipulated on Iraq and how the administration came to define torture as permissable. We are in danger of losing our country, our freedoms, and our civil liberties unless we restore transparency and integrity to our government.

[shadow7]

At the end of the article below is a list of credible and impressive calls for impeachment over the past few years, along with the legal explanations of why this is imperative.

When will the Congress and the nation wake up to the need to remove Bush and Cheney from office before they totally destroy us all?

http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/impeach_bush.html