Reflections on George McGovern's Call for Impeachment

In Sunday's Washington Post, George McGovern, at 85-years-old, sternly recommends that Congress ought to impeach Bush and Cheney ("Why I Believe Bush Must Go: Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse"), even though much prevailing sentiment runs decidedly against it. He explains that after the 1972 presidential election, he, too, was of a mind to refrain from calling for Nixon's impeachment, namely out of a concern that his reproach would be perceived as a vendetta. He regrets that today, members of Congress are making similar calculations and accommodations and that impeachment is, therefore, highly unlikely.

Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising.

Yet the facts won't simply go away, McGovern reminds us, even as members of Congress and mainstream media pundits try to ignore them and to deny the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from them: Bush and Cheney "are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses." They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have willfully broken laws. They have lied to the American people. They have almost certainly committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." The consequences of their actions have been devastating and will be long-lasting. They should be investigated, impeached, and tried. Period.

My sense is that McGovern already knows that the purveyors of Conventional Beltway Wisdom will roll their eyeballs dismissively at his wayward op-ed. No one's in the mood for impeachment: It would be such a distraction, it would be such a downer, it could backfire, Democrats are on a roll, Republicans would never go along with it, we're all basking in Obamuckabee calls for transcending nastiness, let's move forward, it's the campaign season, hope hope hope, change change change, blah blah blah.

I don't think McGovern really expects it to happen. He's writing, instead, for the historical record. "How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality, and lawlessness?"

Put it this way: If Congress doesn't impeach Bush and Cheney, then that section of the Constitution -- Article II, Section 4 -- will be rendered hereafter, for all practical purposes, null and void. No U.S. president and vice president will ever need to worry about impeachment--about being constrained by the rule of law--since the precedent for permissible lawlessness, recklessness, and incompetence will have been set so very low.

What presidential malfeasance could ever be worse? Illegal war. Torture. Plame-gate treason. Abu Ghraib. Katrina. Guantanamo. Illegal surveillance. Halliburton no-bid contracts. Blackwater. K-Street corruption. Enron. Politicizing the Justice Department. Signing statements. And so on. Hard to imagine a U.S. administration sinking much lower.

According to the U.S. Constitution, members of Congress "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." That's their stipulated job. If members of the 110th Congress fail to make a concerted effort in the upcoming year to uphold Article II, Section 4 of that same document, they are liable to go down in history as abdicating their own constitutional duties.

Beware those presidential candidates, furthermore, who claim to be able to lead us into a brave new future and yet cannot currently muster the political will to uphold the Constitution by calling publicly for and supporting impeachment. Their silence isn't strategic, it's complicity.

In my scholarly field of political theory, radical critiques of constitutional democracy (whether Marxist, Foucauldian, feminist, Freudian, or post-structuralist) commonly contend that the rule of law is a sham, a pretense, a mere cover for underlying or overarching power interests. It sure looks as if the Bush-Cheney regime, along with a compliant Congress, is confirming such criticism. Thank goodness -- that is, if you believe in lawful governance -- George McGovern is providing at least one principled voice to the contrary.

But why aren't more folks insisting -- nay, demanding -- that our elected officials abide by the rule of law? What could be more basic? McGovern's lonely invocation of Jefferson at this time -- "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just" -- gives me the chills.

Comments

[Spookcatcher]

All of the Government Leadership, Politicians and Administration members, their think tank buddies, that have facillitated and enabled the activities of the United States Government as directed by the Bush Cheney White House and their Business Partners and their Foreign Agents are worth tracking and prosecuting without regard to time rstraint, just like was done and hopefully even better than it was after the Nazi's of WW2. The World needs to know when America is credible enough to be trusted again and what are leaders agenda really is. Ever since the assassination of JFK this country has been in complete denial of our takeover. We have pretended to ourselfs as being authentic as THE country of some higher moral authority that knows what is best for everybody else in the world. It's been a lie all along our historical journey of intervensions and in the very establishment of our own Nation!

[oldpotsmuggler]

The impeachment of Clinton was a calculated, and successful, deception. After that attempted lynching, it was virtually guaranteed that the impeachment process had been so diluted as to be rendered ineffectual.

That whole affair was the single greatest political masterstroke of my life, and it was completed without anyone even having left any fingerprints behind. I have no clue who the evil genius was.

Or maybe Republicans are filled with such "damn meanness" that it arose like a form of spontaneous combustion.

Man, we really have to move to a "vote of no confidence" system so that leadership can be switched out as easily as life has demonstrated the wisdom of guaranteeing.

THE SECOND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!

[bogtrotters]

I'm afraid that, when justice comes to call, W will be merrily cutting brush on his ranch in Uruguay.

[MAX1]

.

You want to know why the American people are silent?

Because stories like this aren't given the front page coverage it deserves, instead relegated to deep six, if at all.

HuffPo could learn from what is and isn't front page news.

RATINGS AND SHARE HOLDERS AREN'T THE BAROMETER OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

Notice how the elections of '08 are all about "The front runner" to the extent that CORPORATE RUN MEDIA have already decided not only who, but what is placed front and center.

AMERICA... If we are to be the greatest democracy, then how can we be that democracy when information is censored and contrived?

ARIANA, I hope you read this.

.

[esl]

It boggles the mind that Clinton was impeached for a blow job and no one wants to impeach Bush and Cheney for their high crimes and misdemeanors. Now it looks like we will have a Democratic candidate who has been sucking up to the Republicans from day one.

[batguano]

BRAVO GEORGE, and BRAVO John; you write, and I concur wholeheartedly:
"Put it this way: If Congress doesn't impeach Bush and Cheney, then that section of the Constitution -- Article II, Section 4 -- will be rendered hereafter, for all practical purposes, null and void. No U.S. president and vice president will ever need to worry about impeachment--about being constrained by the rule of law--since the precedent for permissible lawlessness, recklessness, and incompetence will have been set so very low."
"According to the U.S. Constitution, members of Congress "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constituti­on." That's their stipulated job."
THEIR FREAKIN JOBS! What we hired and PAY THEM to do and they so swore!
"Beware those presidential candidates, furthermore, who claim to be able to lead us into a brave new future and yet cannot currently muster the political will to uphold the Constitution by calling publicly for and supporting impeachment. Their silence isn't strategic, it's complicity­."
PRECEDENT! The ignoring for political expediency crimes against our Nation and the world; all humanity, is what's at stake, nothing less! Our fathers did not shirk at bringing to Justice the Nazi war crimes and perpetrators, and we should not allow the Crimes of the Bush/Neocon Regime to go uninvestigated! In ALL aspects, and ALL the perpetrators (especially the archetects like the depraved John Yoo and all the PNAC/AEI crowds) prosecuted to the fullest extent and brought to justice or else they WILL be back to harm our Nation even more!

What indeed could be more basic? But "let's move forward, it's the campaign season, hope hope hope, change change change, blah blah blah." It is interesting that Gary Hart in http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/the-national-interest-and_b_78987.html argued against "vengeance, retribution, hatred and demonization" of Bush conspirators.
Our national Honor MUST be re-established and those who dragged it into the gutter of their depravity, greed and lies Must be brought to Justice for healing to begin!

[Unsui]

Great post. I have talked to a couple of Democrats,political pros, that I have a great deal of respect for on this issue and they are always of the same mind "Don't rock the boat. We're about to win not only the White House but a huge congressional majority as well". I believe them to be right on this point, but my question is this: why would it be a distraction, or harmful to the Party, to bring up and hammer on the criminality and malfeasance of the Cheney-Bush organization?
The time spent in the Senate and House exposing the crimes of this administration could be framed in a way that would make the Republican's look very, very bad trying to defend them.
I can understand not fucking up a good thing, but I don't see why we shouldn't be very aggressive and kick these thugs while they're down. Not only is it the responsibility of our Congress to uphold the Constitution, it could be effective in "permanently" crushing the Republican Political Machine.

[QueenMaedb]

"Put it this way: If Congress doesn't impeach Bush and Cheney, then that section of the Constituti­on--Articl­e II, Section 4--will be rendered hereafter, for all practical purposes, null and void. No U.S. president and vice president will ever need to worry about impeachment--about being constrained by the rule of law--since the precedent for permissible lawlessness, recklessness, and incompetence will have been set so very low."

I disagree. If Hillary is elected, the Republicans will find Article II, Section 4 in a New York Minute.

[RickO]

We need a post-Bush regime equivalent of the Nuremburg trials. All who were either involved, complicit or who aided and abetted by refusing to act should stand trial. Launch a special C-span channel just to cover it. Add a new wing to Leavenworth prison to house the convicted. Sentencing guidelines should range from a minimum of loss of pension to a maximum of life in prison without parole.

[fairwitness]

"How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality, and lawlessness?"

What a shameful epitaph for this generation of Americans.

Many, however, HAVE been calling for impeachment for years and the democrats (excepting Feingold and Kucinich) have, in the end, simply failed their constitutional and moral duty. They have not the political guts nor the ethical nobility on which the Constitution depends.

I hope Reed & Pelosi will feel the crushing weight of their failure and abdication in the future and, in some day of moral reckoning, publicly apologize and ask our forgiveness for their complicity in the crimes of Bush and Cheney and their gang of jackals.

And...woul­d that God IS just.

[sugarmoes]

bush has been taunting and goading and giving every excuse to enemies of america to hit her.

and they will.

sooner rather than later.

bush's so feverishly demanding to preemptively invade iraq (all the while knowingly lying in order to orchestrate a plausible - to some - avenue to war) can make one think that it was bush's intent all along to incite more attacks.

for no president could be foolish enough to think that a preemptive and uncalled for attack would go unanswered.

even though george w. bush acts foolish, he certainly can't have been naive to those most basic of dynamics.

so i ask again... why did he invade? sadly probably mostly for personal financial and egoic profit.

[magen]

The facts will still be there when we have a Democratic President, and a veto proof majority in Congress.

Whoever is not pardoned (can Bush pardon himself or any body, from FUTURE prosecution?) will be dealt with then.

Maybe its better if we wait, cause if we start investigation and prosecution now, Bush will just pardon them while he's still in power.