No Take-Home Swag: Stripping Bush and Cheney of Retirement Perks
Last summer, a USA Today-Gallup poll found 36% of Americans thought Congress should impeach George W. Bush.
Even more wanted Dick Cheney's head.
Despite fluctuating numbers for several years, no serious movement to forcibly remove them from office ever caught fire. The simple fact is that this administration effectively ran out the clock on impeachment at least a year ago. That option is long gone.
Yet the shoes just keep on dropping.
Ron Suskind's new book The Way Of The World shows conclusively that the White House ordered a fake, backdated letter to "prove" that Saddam Hussein had WMD and was connected to al Qaeda. First we're lied into war, then false evidence is contrived to fool us, and Suskind's proof comes from no less than former high-ranking CIA officials who are named and on tape.
This latest news is simultaneously beyond the pale and not shocking at all, which is the odd place we find ourselves after seven and a half years.
Richard Nixon's paranoia led him to spy on his enemies and he ultimately resigned, the only president in history to do so. Only an immediate pardon by his successor, Gerald Ford, averted criminal indictment. The Bush/Cheney duo, however, is a completely different animal, making "Tricky Dick" come off as a mere piker.
Therefore, something must be done, but what? Filing charges after Bush leaves office is possible but problematic because the Constitution lacks any real guidance on this question. The Supreme Court, which forced W on us in the first place in 2000, ruled in 1982 that ex-presidents do have "damages immunity" for official, on-the-job acts. As for lying, Bush never testified under oath about anything, not even when he was interviewed by federal prosecutors investigating the illegal leak of a covert CIA officer's name.
More importantly, mounting a criminal case could take years. It would freeze the country in the partisanship of the past when an Obama administration should move briskly into the future. Perhaps we're better off with Crawford, Texas in our rear-view mirror.
Still, there's a hell of a mess left behind, so here's a quick, easy, permanent rebuke: no swag bag on their way out the door.
No post-presidential emolument of any kind. No lifetime salary (currently near $200K annually), no multi-million dollar office budget that citizens now ante up every year, no matching millions to help run the Bush presidential library. Not a dime of taxpayer money other than the necessary Secret Service detail (it only lasts 10 years, anyway).
This crowd is super wealthy; they won't end up on desolation row. But such a response will shout for the record -- officially and forever -- that in this country you can't waltz away unscathed after such high office malfeasance.
After all, Bill Clinton endured impeachment over a non-criminal dalliance with an intern. Are Bush and Cheney destined to suffer zero indignity? Whistling arm-in-arm into the night as the camera fades, like the final airport scene from Casablanca? It sure seems that way, unless we at least insist on some sort of justice.
Congress sets salaries and retirement benefits. There were no presidential pensions until 1958, so they're hardly sacred, and nothing precludes withholding them as punishment. It's never been done, but has been openly considered twice: by Democrats when Nixon left office in shame, and by Republicans in the late 90's as a cudgel against Clinton.
It's finally time. Stripping Bush -- Cheney, too -- of our hard-earned tax dollars for the rest of their lives, without gloat or bloodlust, is the least we can do.
They've more than earned it.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Good plan. In fact, everyone aligned with this twisted, corrupt administration should be stripped of their pension packages. Bush has spent most of his presidency on vacation, anyway, and that has been at our expense, just as his war has been at our financial expense (not to mention the thousands upon thousands killed and permanently maimed). I don't think we should even pay for a security detail for him. If he wants protection, he can pay for it himself.
Strip the ENTIRE cabinet of their pensions and other benefits. First and foremost: they don't deserve another cent from taxpayers, second; they have more than enough money to live comfortably. The whople sorry lot is complicit in damaging our Nation, both at home and in the global arena, and none of the bums deserve their pensions!
Well Remember the $ 5 Million Dollar home they gave Regean after he left office in downtown L.A. ?
Good luck with this idea if See No Evil, Hear No Evil Pelosi/Hoyer/Reed et al stay in their leadership positions. The only way this might happen is if Obama gets elected AND he's interested in it -- the former much more likely than the latter.
if she had 60 votes you would be singing a different tune.
Sorry, yet one more thought on this. You really pushed my buttons with this!
LOL
As to the bi-partisanship garbage;
It seems in the demonization of Clinton people have actually been blaming him for what the neocons did to him. Either they are using blatent cynical tactics or they have never done any investigation, reading, research about what went down... inswtead just parroting the same BS the neocons put out over a decade ago.
Clinton started out wanting to build consensus... and they stripped him and anything he wanted to do down to nothing. He had to capitulate over and over, accept far less than he wanted because of them and they still harrassed and hounded and did everything they possibly could to take him down.
And yes Virginia, it was (and is) a vast right wing conspiracy.
Sure, let these bastards go and in 4 years, or 8 years they will be back at it.
All these people were major players or connected through the major players to the Nixon administration and the rest of these R administrations. I would almost bet that the persecution of the Clintons by the neocons was connected to Hillary Rodham's work on the Watergate Impeachment committee.
AND another thing:
Whatydoes that even mean, not get things done, what is more important to get done than restore our constitution.
If we do not we have slipped a little further toward fascism. I sure wish that people would understand what is at stake here, its not just letting them skate.
They need to be shamed, they need to be held up to the world. We need to send a message to future leaders, Presidents, VP's etc AND to show the world that we hold our leaders accountable and that is why our system of government works.
We are being laughed at, reviled and pitied by the rest of the world.
Does anyone doubt that they would do anything to anyone for revenge and/or to make sure their agenda is not thwarted?
Sorry, but this idea of letting them get away with this crap is galling to say the least.
It is one of my major issues with O.
AND BTW
And screw the partisanship bs.
bi partisanship to the R's is for D's to capitulate. Period.
Let me tell you something, if the situation were reversed does anyone think the Republicans would hesitate a second to create a living hell for the Democrats?
They do it for much less.
And if anyone thinks that all of a sudden that the Repubs are just all of a sudden going to achieve enlightenment and co-operate with an O administration IF he wins which is beginning to look doubtful, they are deluding themselves. It will not happen.
Besides, the reason we have two parties is to fight and negotiate our way into policies that while not perfect for anyone will benefit the greatest amount of people.
see how well that works out?
LOL
NO.
To not prosecute these people is actually against the Constitution.
I don't iunderstand why no one brings this up or writes about it.
To not defend the constitution is equivalent to subverting it.
It is illegal.
The idea that O and Nancy and the rest will let these people skate is reprehensible. I/ve been saying since the beginning of this election cycle that whoever is willing to say out loud, swear an oath that they will get to the bottom of all the crimes with TRANSPARENT investigations. Without this we are a laughing stock and are proving to the world that corruption and crimes are all OK for our Government officials... you know, the ones we hired!
It shows that our so called Democracy, a country of laws, not "men" is a whole bunch of crap and our Constitution is "quaint" and isn't worth the "goddam piece of paper" and it shows we don't care about the misery these people have perpetrated on the WORLD. It shows the world that we are full of hot air when we talk about morality and we can never stand up for human rights again.
How can you listen to the idiot king talk about Russia's morality and not remember abu grahib, rendition, torture, lies to go to war, 600,00 dead, a couple of million refugees, and our own dead.
NO, these people must be held to account.
Nice try, ohmercy, but you are spitting into the wind trying to convince the supporters of Sen. Obama that the Republicans are not interested in compromise as defined by the Democratic Party. You are spitting into the wind trying to educate voters that harangue others about making themselves knowledgeable but refuse to do so themselves with regards the Clinton administration, preferring to parrot the skewed garbage that the Neocons put out as history. You are fighting the tide trying to make your point that by letting Nixon and the criminals in his administration off we ended up with an even more virulent Cheney, Rumsfeld, Addington et al decades later and the same is likely to happen again with the Bushies. But, nice try anyway.
We could impeach Bush in less than six months. Facts are facts.
Theoretically yes, but with the Senate split (Votes: 49 repugs, 49 demodorks and 2 independents, one of which leans far right) No conviction would ever come out of this Senate. As far as bringing articles of impeachment in the House of 'Representatives' never with Pelosi at the helm. The only way we can get OUR country back is by systematically voting the current bums out of office. Re-elect NO incumbents and start looking outside the box. No more (R) or (D) candidates. Enough is enough, it is OUR country, not that of corrupt special interest lackeys!
This is rich, after Bill Clinton was impeached and still left with the kitchen sink. Neither George Bush nor Dick Cheney has been charged with a crime much less brought to trial. Oh, I forgot about Kucinich, he has a lot of support pushing forward. Change the laws when you don't like the President, but keep it in the closet when he's one of yours.
I like it -- but I still think Bu$hco belongs defending itself at The Hague.
A suggestion:
If the criminals involved in this administration are not held accountable during the remainder of Bush's term, perhaps we citizens can do something once they are out of office.
Case in point, the attempted citizen's arrest of Karl Rove the other week in Iowa. While some states are not friendly to the Citizen's Arrest process, others make it quite feasible to perform a citizen's arrest of a known felon. This could make travel, speeches and fundraising uncomfortable vulnerabilities for these criminals. Here's an excerpt of California's Penal Code:
837. A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
A handful of legal scholars could craft a national list of where citizens' arrests are legal, what the exact laws are and what should be told to responding law enforcement (who have likely never dealt with this). There would need to be a concise list of names, felonies committed and brief evidence notes in one easily printed database. These "cheat sheets" could then be carried to show authorities during any citizens' arrest.
If Congress can't do it, maybe we the people can.
I agree, lets to all that and then we can make a Note on their Permanent Record!
That will show them!
It simply won't happen with the "water for guts" Democratic majority. I realize it isn't a large majority, but these folks, led by Reid and Pelosi, won't even try. I know it wouldn't pass, but frankly $200K is chump change for both those folks. If Bush is the least bit hard up, he has only to turn to Cheney, who has certainly become a gazillionaire by taking us to war to benefit his "blind trust" (aptly named if it means blinding others so they are forced to trust you.)
So the value in the gesture is AS a gesture--the shock value. It would send an important message to to Bush and Cheney--on the long winter days while they are holed up waiting for the speaking invites that never come and for golf and bird slaughter weather to return, they will brood about the indignity of this. So it is worth doing, to spoil the taste of 10 year old scotch (which they are both drinking now, in copious quantities, make no mistake). But Pelosi won't do it. It conflicts with the charm school manners that made her nonthreatening enough to be the first woman speaker. And Reid is all bluster. Maybe at the Congressional reception for the two, there will be only two kinds of sandwiches and three kinds of cake instead of the usual cornucopic spread. That'lll teach 'em!
"This crowd is super wealthy; they won't end up on desolation row. But such a response will shout for the record -- officially and forever -- that in this country you can't walk away unscathed after such high office malfeasance."
You've got to be kidding. No retirement for unbelievably rich war criminals? I'll bet they're passing this article around the White House right now and having a mighty laugh at your expense. Besides, who's going to revoke even their retirement packages, the Democrats in Congress? I'm laughing too.
The only thing that is going to "shout for the record officially and forever that in this country you can't walk away unscathed after such high office malfeasance" is impeachment -- even if there is only one day left in their administration-- followed by prosecution and jail time; or failing that, criminal prosecution after leaving office.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
