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

[outnow]

Great post. It seems that Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment off the table no matter what. The saber-rattling by Dick Cheney is only amplified and enabled by her actions. Is this what Ms. Pelosi wants? Maybe a good cop - bad cop policy towards Iran? Meanwhile, the rest of us are kept in the dark as to what is really happening. It feels like a permanent Cuban Missile crisis with a threatened fascist take-over in this country.

Biden says that the Iranians have no plutonium. The real danger is now in Pakistan. What we say goes. What the public knows is no longer relevant. This is what Cheney means by going on the "dark side."

I have no faith in their ability to control events in the Middle East as they collapse government after government. Where does this all stop?

[The Collinbrandt]

The PROBLEM IS THAT YOU CANNOT ATTACK A PERSON WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD BE ATTACKING THAT PERSON ON MORAL/POLITICAL GROUNDS RECEIVE MONEY FROM THE SAME WEALTHY FACTIONS (WEALTHY FAMILIES}. WE LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE THOSE BORN TO WEALTH RULE AND, ONLY THOSE THAT HAVE ATHLETIC ABILITIES SHOULD RUN ALL SMALL TO MEDIUM BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS. THE SLAVE OWNERS TODAY ARE NOT THAT MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THOSE OF THE 1800'S.

The problem with many current slave holders in Dubai, is that no one will even challenge them since both George Bush and Michael Jackson have homes there. Are Americans so sick in the head that they do'nt see any reltionship between M. Jackson, Dubai the Bush family and, child sex slaves.

[sofia]

Impeachment tells the world not all Americans are insane! Nancy gave this administration the green light to do as they please.

[Ben Dixon]

So Russert is out of line for asking the candidates to pledge to do all they can to ensure America has a role in ensuring that Iran, a NPT signatory, follows its obligations to show the world it is not pursuing nuclear weapons? What Russert asked was a legitimate question. But an even better question would have been asking the candidates how they would acheive that goal.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I'm proud of Kucinich for taking the time to
express his beliefs, and the opinion that's
shared probably by a lot more people than this batch of pandidiots is really willing to admit,
what I'd like to know is when it is that Billary
joined Bush's cabinet...­.?

End the war, impeach the Bush administration,
take the Big Magic Checkbook away, and cut the crap.

[Balzac]

"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."

That's exactly what Bush and his followers have in mind.

They should be impeached, imprisoned, and have their war-profits liquidated into a slush-fund for reparations to victims of war-crimes and torture.

[zenx98]

You present a very clear case, and yet WHERE IS THE RAGE?! One administration flunky after another claiming "the dog ate my homework" is paraded in front of congress, and just like the exasperated parents of incorrigible children relentlessly and criminally acting out Congress throws throws in the towel. Can anyone hear Condi Rice echoing the final refrains from the Gonzalez liberetto? Blackwater!? What Blackwater!?
Real investigations and impeachment would be in the best interest of the country. Unfortunately somewhere along the line clarity of rage in the American political psyche was laid to rest and truth and government became mutually exclusive. Problem?! What problem?!

[Herrington]

The SOB in chief was complaining about congressional oversight just yesterday. Seems he thinks it’s a waste of time. Therefore if you had any lingering doubt about his guilt, his protest should seal the question.

Why W has not been impeached is a question of historic proportions. No American president has done more to the detriment of this nation or to the detriment of the world than W. The plain fact is that if there were a constitutional recourse to impeach by popular demand, he would be back at the ranch already.

This must surely raise the interest of despots everywhere as to how America is such an easy target for hostile takeover. It may still be that within the next year, Bush will drop the pretense and declare martial law. That this is even a remotely possible notion is unprecedented in our history and reason enough in itself to lock the bastard in a jail cell and throw away the key.

Gutlessness. If it is possible to lose control of a hard won congressional majority by doing the right thing, then it begs the question of what it is you were elected in majority to do if not the right thing?

[LindaJay]

Excellent points. I also caught the fact that someone had finally used the word "neocon" and mentioned Iran-Contra and those behind it.

I keep wondering why the Democratic candidates aren't doing more to educate the public about what the Neocon agenda really is. I suspect that more people have heard the phrase "gay agenda" than "neocon agenda." In light of the Republican hopefuls, it is crucial that they know exactly what these people want to do with the world and how they would achieve it. I suspect that most Americans would be horrified.

I really doubt that most Americans are aware of the huge swing to the radical right the Republican party has taken since Reagan. I'm sure they will identify the rise of the Religious Right and its importance to Republicans.

But the neocon agenda is basically an agenda of worldwide colonization and pre-emptive wars. The democratic party should be telling this to the American public over and over and over again. I suspect that some of those who reflexively vote Republican would have to rethink their position.

But instead, we too often see the democrats trying to show that they are just as tough on terror and just as willing to go to war as the neocons. We need to clearly highlight the differences and make sure the public knows exactly what the neocons want.

[sugarmoes]

republicans won't even cave on the schip veto defense... they certainly won't turn on precious duhbyuh if an impeachment arises... as much as i'd LOVE to see him and cheney impeached and removed and imprisoned.

[hopeless277]

Why on earth would Nancy want to impeach a president for something that she, herself supports? And why impeach a president for acts that the next Democratic president will replicate? They are one big happy family in Washington D.C. Sucking the life and blood and money out of the rest of the country to feed their own greedy thirst. Dissolve congress for all the good they do.

[OhgReaTone]

The Democratic field has represented itself and America well on the issue of escalating to War. Bush, the surrogate of Cheney, does not understand the value or power of words. Cheney understands words - he just does not understand consequences.
Ohg
Link to Fireside on Cheney