A Case for Impeachment

05/25/2011 11:55 am ET

This is my first blog on the Huffington Post and there is so much to talk about it's hard to know where to begin.

I want to start with a point I made in my new book, The Impeachment of George W. Bush, about why the framers of the Constitution created the impeachment power. They were afraid that despite the system of checks and balances, a president could subvert the constitution and threaten our democracy.

In other words, the framers anticipated George W. Bush. They knew that sooner or later someone like him--someone who tramples on the rule of law--would appear on the scene. The framers told us what to do about such a president: Impeach him.

But neither the mainstream media nor most of the Democrats in Congress want to breathe the word "impeachment," even though there are substantial grounds. Still, the power is in the hands of the American people to change control of Congress, which has failed to hold President Bush accountable, and force the new one to act. That is what we must, and can, do this November.

Two recent events provide more support for impeachment. First is the recently released National Intelligence Estimate, which shows that the Iraq war has created more terrorism than there was before the war.

Iraq was not related to the terrorism of 9/11. President Bush personally knew this. Nonetheless, he repeatedly suggested that Saddam and 9/11 were connected and most Americans believed that. It was one of the deliberate falsehoods used by President Bush and his team to drive us into the Iraq war--and it is ground for impeachment.

Now, our intelligence agencies agree that instead of ending terrorism, the Iraq war has inflamed it. This confirms that Bush's justification for the war was flat-out wrong.

Parenthetically, the situation in Afghanistan--where Osama bin Laden actually operated--seems to be deteriorating drastically, a direct consequence of the President's diversion of troops and resources to invade Iraq. President Bush might become the first American president to lose two wars at once.

In addition, yesterday, several high level generals excoriated Secretary Rumsfeld for failing to provide our troops with proper equipment and for invading Iraq without a plan for the occupation. While they are correct, these failings are not Rumsfeld's alone. President Bush is ultimately responsible. As my book details, Bush, the "decider," should have insisted on a serious and thorough plan for the occupation. He didn't. He should also have ensured proper equipment for our troops. He didn't. The consequences for our troops, for Americans, and for Iraqis have been disastrous. Particularly because there was no urgency to the invasion, which had been in planning for more than a year, these failures violate Bush's constitutional duty to "take care" that the laws are faithfully executed.

Every day brings a new justification for impeachment.