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

[Ilvfredum]

If Bush committed impeachable offenses why is Dennis Kusinich the only elected official to make these accusations. Bill Clinton can shut down protestors but he won't accuse Bush of impeachable offenses. Just curious?

[Bflobaz]

Did I wake up in the Twilight Zone?
In the 1960s and '70s, groups espousing violence, such as Charles Manson as the leader of Manson’s Family, to tip society into a "Helter-Skelter" race war or the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) to create a working class uprising were considered not merely radical, but crazy. But these days, groups content to use any excuse to provoke a war; be it the next 'logical' step in the Second Coming of Jesus or to attain control over the resources (oil) of the Middle East are in the very halls of power in Washington, DC and called our political and religious leaders.
If the only so-called rational argument against Impeachment is that it will occupy too much of the Administration's time and impede the efficient working of the government, then I say: "That is EXACTLY why Impeachment is the ace in the hole to prevent the madness; which some actually have a crazy notion, is but one more tool in the drawer. Impeachment resolutions for both Bush and Cheney MUST be undertaken and taken now as one sane and Constitutional means to stop the madness committed in our name.

[FlowerGirl]

David, thank you for the best political article I've seen in a long time. And especially for your pointing out what was not said, which is always as important as what was.
When I see Hillary Rodham Clinton, I can't help but think of how chamelionlike she is. She says she opposes Bush's wars but votes to extend them. I am reminded of Woodrow Wilson, who in 1916 campaigned on keeping us out of the war, and six months later took us in. I can't trust her.
Dodd comes off good. But why wouldn't those fools join with Kucinich and impeach the president. How much damage do they think we should suffer from him?

[Plowboy]

Great post! This shows the sad state America has allowed itself to be put in.
I believe thast if we allow another Neocon, whether Republican or (nominally) Democrat, the nation will be irretrievably lost.
No Hillary Rotten Cretin; we don't want to be sold down the damn river.
Dodd looks better and better, but I still like Kucinich on the issues. Universal health care, and damn those insurance parasites. Impeach the criminals.

[Doofus]

Perhaps a more effective way to shut the war
down than impeachment of Bush & Cheney would
be just to antagonize China so that they will
cut off our funding.

What will Bush do? Roll-back tax-breaks for the
Wealthy, or end the War? What to do? What to do?

How to antagonize China? Let's 'liberate' Tibet!
Congress can pass one of its mighty 'Sense of
the Congress' measures stating that 'Tibet is
now a free & independent nation'. That should
get their attention. After that, Congress moves on Manchuria.

[RogerHWerner]

Considering the weatened status of Congress, impeachment may be the only thing that can prevent Bush/Cheney from creating yet another war in the Middle East. With what we presently know, these men are certainly impeachable and if anyone doubts it they should read Elizabeth de la Vega's book: The United States vs. Bush et al. A former US Attorney, she lays out the impeachment case for Pelosi on a silver platter.
See: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/044

[jsarets]

The issue of impeachment reminds me of my fraternity days. The bylaws required that every officer stand for a vote of confidence (VOC) at least once during his term. These votes were a formality scheduled ahead of time. The officer does a minute speech on his performance, maybe the brothers ask a couple questions, then we vote to keep him in his position.

But we did this for a reason. By repeating this process every year, we defeated the psychology that calling a VOC is a huge deal that should be done reluctantly. So when an officer wasn't doing a good job, we were prepared to call him on it. Officers realized that, at the very least, they would be accountable for their performance at their scheduled VOC and whenever they screw up.

So here's an outlandish suggestion: A Constitutional Amendment that requires the president to stand for impeachment at least once during each term. Usually it would be a formality, or so we would hope. But it would hold the president accountable to Congress (and therefore the public) for his actions, and in the event of any wrongdoing, Congress wouldn't be so uptight about impeachment.

[leftLibertarian]

Seeing that in 1953 the US and the England headed a coup that overthrew Iran's elected leader.

Seeing that recently the US invaded a neighbor country based on lies.

Iran has every right to defend itself. In fact, it would be foolish not to.

[dow2200]

The Cheney's team of Neo-Fascists planned The Iraq invasion years ahead of 9/11. Read the plan in their own words at Projectfor­aNewAmeric­anCentury.­org. They have actually acomplished what I once thought impossible: the complete subjugation of the Constitution of the U.S. to Fascist ideology and NewSpeak. For the first time in my life I am truly embarassed to be an American. Were I young enough to start again, I would gladly emigrate to a country that still values freedom, and whose richest citizens willingly pay taxes so the poorest do not starve to death in the street, like Sweden. I had great hopes for Speaker Pelosi, but she is either gutless or has been bought off. How can we stand still in the face of outright treason by Bush and Cheney. The nominee for Attorney General of the U.S. "doesn't know" if waterboarding is torture? Then strap him onto a board, and hold him underwater untill he decides. Torture is the most morally repugnant crime in the world. Now we Americans routinely torture - not just known terrorists, but anyone we pick up on "suspicion of supporting terrorism". This is not America. This is not Democracy or a Free Republic. Mussolini would recognize our country for what it has become: "Corporatism," his own term for Fascism. When the Corporate ruling elite seizes all power, and the government exists only to serve corporate interests. Let's hope, or if you a person of faith, pray that Cheney / Bush leave office (or are thrown out) before they start WW III by attacking Iran. Think of the profit potential for Halliburton, et all in World War III!

[jazzman]

"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."

This one act, made almost at the beginning of her tenure was one of the largest strategic blunders a leader could make and has doomed her to be remembered as a most incompetent and impotent Speaker of the House. Too bad, I think we all had high hopes for Nancy but she blew it. The worst part is that she doesn't even have the self awareness to realize how badly she blew it.

[Maxine]

I agree with you whole heartedly! This president and his adminsistration must know that Americans will not tolerate him and his coharts any longer. But our voices are not being heard because our representatives are spineless.

[Elliott32]

David Bromwich is the Keith Olbermann of blogs. Thank you again for this and the other great informative articles.

[zjr909]

With impeachment, in this case in particular, it's overwhelmingly "the thought that counts." Win or lose or end up looking foolish, just imagine how it would feel if Congress stood up and said straight out "Enough is enough Mr. President. We won't look the other way another moment." Ever since Nancy Pelosi said impeachment was off the table, I've wondered if she felt she had to say it so people wouldn't think she was trying to beat Hillary Clinton to become the first woman president. Because, face it, to impeach Bush is necessarily to impeach Cheney as well; and we know who's third in line. It had to put her in an awkward position - not that that in any way recuses her from her Constitutional responsibilities. I just don't see her as a corrupt enabler; but I don't think she truly belongs where she is either. She's the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, as others have pointed out, she could put impeachment back on the table. Though I shudder to think what it would take to make her do it.

[SkippyJones]

What a beautiful, sober & elegantly written post - pity we have so few men of Fulbright's conviction in government today. I just don't get it - take Kucinich for example. He keeps talking about impeachment - why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is? The Speaker doesn't hold the keys on impeachment. If he feels the country is in peril - and I happen to agree - then ACT. Nobody is taking ACTION. Oversight Hearings are ACTION - threatening them is not. And if they don't show - like in the U.S. Attorney Hearings - then hold them in contempt. Why on God's earth has Congress stalled and not scheduled a simple vote to hold Harriet Meirs in contempt for not even showing up during the LAST Congress. You are right - you don't have to go back to the Founders to find honorable men who would be appalled by the functioning of our government - you just have to go back thirty or forty years - where this kind of chicanery, disrespect and criminal undermining of our country would not have gone unchallenged. And Russert is an idiot - I am so sick of that man's sycophantic 'news' show where politicians take the place of hollywood celebrities, and his predictably hawkish position which frames every damn question he asks. Are democrats so stupid that they can't step outside the frame of questions posed to them and reframe? Bush has a heyday - dems are 'putting troops in harm's way' by funding SCHIP....OMG....you couldn't make this stuff up. TURN THE TABLES - because truth, integrity and justice is not on this administration's side.

[WIpatriot]

I'M ALREADY AGAINST THE NEXT WAR!