Insight on ‘bracing for impeachment’

January 24, 2006

As a rule, Insight, which is an off-shoot of Sun Myung Moon’s far-right Washington Times, is not a reliable source for news. But for reasons I can’t figure out, the magazine keeps publishing strange items about internal turmoil at the Bush White House.

The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress. “A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment,” an administration source said.

Sources said a prelude to the impeachment process could begin with hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. They said the hearings would focus on the secret electronic surveillance program and whether Mr. Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Administration sources said the charges are expected to include false reports to Congress as well as Mr. Bush’s authorization of the National Security Agency to engage in electronic surveillance inside the United States without a court warrant.

Putting aside what Bush critics might want and what Bush’s conduct warrants, impeachment isn’t going to happen with a Republican Congress. It’s why I find the Insight article so terribly odd — it cites nervous administration sources who are purportedly preparing for the worst. This seems highly unlikely.

This comes just two months after Insight ran an item explaining that Bush has become melancholy and paranoid. “The sources said Mr. Bush maintains daily contact with only four people: first lady Laura Bush, his mother, Barbara Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes. The sources also say that Mr. Bush has stopped talking with his father, except on family occasions.”

Just to be clear, I’m not inclined to believe Insight articles, but the reports raise two questions for me. First, who are these administration “sources” who keep dishing dirt? Second, why would the far-right Washington Times’ “sister publication” publish pieces that make Bush look bad?

This is part of the typical behavior pattern of alcoholics and drug addicts, those who refuse to undergo rehab: unquestioning “religious” faith, excessive devotion to exercise, and a narrow set of subservient social contacts (two relatives, two wanna-bes). What a simple (if fragile) world the Regal Moron lives in.

  • Could it just be that the Moonies are finally tired of supporting the Bushies and want to get positioned for 2008 with a candidate from their own sliver of the radical right? You know, one that believes that Reverend Moon is actually the Messiah!

    But you are missing the real intention here, CB. The radical right is concerned that they will lose control of Congress in 2006. They want to build up paranoia in the right wing fanatics that Bush will be impeached if the Dems win to get out the ‘Base’.

    ‘Cause, as you know, the ‘Base’ is getting pretty annoyed at a President that will not veto one pork laden appropriations bill 😉

  • Lance,

    The ‘Base’ is also pissed that — due to massive contributions of money and time, millions of hours of hate radio, hundreds of devoted think tanks, fraud at the polls, etc. — they’ve owned the White House and both houses of Congress FOR FIVE YEARS and now have the Supreme Court as well, and still they haven’t been able enact a law overthrowing Roe v. Wade. Must be very frustrating for them.

  • I agree that they’re pissed about not getting everything they want, but they’re getting closer (Alito will help, for example). Whether or not Bush has given them everything they want, the only immediate effect hurting him will have is helping Democrats. They certainly don’t want that, and I would think they’re aware of it.

    The only explanation I could come up with (assuming that there was an agenda beyond just reporting a scoop, which is probably a reasonable assumption) was what Lance noted above… that getting conservatives worried about an impeachment will rile them up and make sure they keep voting Republican.

  • I can’t help but think that this is an attempt, however inept or misguided it is viewed among W’s croneys, to create a “circle the wagons” mentality among the Moonies and their readers. “Our poor Dumbya is under attack and about to break! We need to support him more than ever!!”

  • “I can’t help but think that this is an attempt, however inept or misguided it is viewed among W’s croneys, to create a “circle the wagons” mentality among the Moonies and their readers.”

    If that were the case, why would the articles focus on portraying Bush himself in an unflattering light, as opposed to focusing the reporting on the “conspiracy” planning the impeachment? Certainly the first article about Bush becoming depressed and paranoid doesn’t inspire a “circle the wagons” mentality; it just undermines the president’s credibility. Why would a pro-administration publication want to do that?

  • Well it appears to me that perhaps the “Insight” news site may have sources that know all too well that Bush is in fact gong to face Impeachment hearings and that the news site may want to report it as a means to create or otherwise maintain a position of credibility as a news source….

  • It strikes me as disinformation.

    If that were the case, why would the articles focus on portraying Bush himself in an unflattering light, as opposed to focusing the reporting on the “conspiracy” planning the impeachment?

    The idea is to push the negative. The base isn’t going to be swayed by negatives. But, they will be mobilized by negatives. The “conspiracy” is a given. It is already in play. Always has been, right? But, “impeachment” is a big bad word. Get the faithful in a frenzy. It’s simply reconfirming the beliefs of the faithful. It’s propaganda.

    Certainly the first article about Bush becoming depressed and paranoid doesn’t inspire a “circle the wagons” mentality; it just undermines the president’s credibility. Why would a pro-administration publication want to do that?

    All attacks upon the President, in the eyes of the faithful, inspire a “circle the wagons” attitidue. More directly, they keep the faithful fired up. “Those disgusting Liberals are after the Commander in Chief again…”. It’s very affective. They aren’t going to believe it anyway, or if they do, they will focus the BLAME for Bush’s “depression and paranoia” upon his opposition. Propagandists excel in knowing who their audience is and what mobilizes them in action and thought, keeping them solidly in support of the President.

    A pro-Administration publication is simply doing what all biased outlets do- they support and reconfirm.

  • Thoughts:
    1) I hope it is all true.
    2) His wife, his mommy, Condi, and Karen Hughes? Does he need more hugs or what?
    3) Maybe the news is leaking out because the rats are starting to jump ship.
    4) If this article was in the NYT or Washington Post how would it be different?

  • It could just be expectation management. Like putting out inflated estimates of the deficit at the beginning of the year, then crowing that the actual deficit is below expectations, despite being the highest ever. Here, the administration expects Senate hearings about the eavesdropping scandal, which could be bad, but will seem anticlimactic if people are primed to anticipate impeachment hearings.

  • An interesting video excerpt from the McLaughlin Group, via Brad Blog which looks at the impeachment issue and discusses the question:

    Can negative perceptions of the Bush Admin. suppress the “Rove base” while motivating the anti-Bush crowds at the polls?

    http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002317.htm

    The impeachment option is always floated in these matters. While it’s not really a serious possibility with a Republican Congress, the seriousness of the issue at it’s heart makes the option a serious one. And, everyone knows it.

    So, my take is that the moonie Times is launcing pre-emptive strikes.

    Also of note, the video shows how Conservatives really don’t think there is a Constituional issue in regard to the NSA / FISA warrantless wiretapping at all. They feel that a President should have the power. Scary.

  • You’re belief that there are actually sources that exist shows you are far less cynical than I am.

    Do you need a real source for fake news?

  • Of course, there’s the alternative. That the Moonie Times is just making the shit up. (Why would do something like that? I don’t have enough interest in the Moonies to really care about their plots).

    Anyway, if there are genuine impeachment rumblings, that story would be so big that we’d be getting signs from multiple sources. Including a few that at least have a reputation for occasional accuracy. What we have here is one source that is an order of magnitude less trustworthy than the National Enquirer.

  • To answer the question: Sun Myung Moon is nuttier than a box of Cracker Jacks. But other than that, I’m mystified. Perhaps comments 1-13 which I haven’t yet read will provide some insight 🙂

  • Reporters make things up all the time. It matters not if they write for the Moonie Times or the New York Times.

    Remember the “Violence needed to fight terror: Buddha’s man of peace” headlines offered by the NY Times’ Laurie Goodstein?

    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/18/1063625159989.html

    The quotes by the Dalai Lama to that affect were entirely non-existent, made up. But, it went out over the wires and was repeated around the world that the Dalai Lama had stated that violence was necessary to fight terrorism.

    Can the same be said of the Dalai Lama’s letter of complaint that his words were “embellished” and the quote that he had said “violence was necessary” was made up?

    http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2003/9/23_1.html

    Not a peep. Completely ignored by the mainstream press.

    Why reporters make stuff up is a personal one no doubt. Power, friends, fear, money, social status… all of it. None of it.

    But, it occurs all the time.

  • Maybe they’re just trying to drive the liberal bloggers
    nuts. Maybe it sells. Maybe it’s just something fun
    to do once in a while. Maybe they just want to
    feed our dreams, distract us. Who knows?

    But one thing’s for sure: it ain’t true, and Bush is
    not getting impeached, election 2006 is coming
    down the pike, and we ain’t got nothin’ goin’
    yet. The USA poll today showed Bush holding
    steady at 43%, some 5-6 points above his low,
    meaning spygate and Abramoff haven’t done
    diddly to him, or the Congress, I’m afraid.

  • Who would be talking about the Washington Times if it was just another day of Shrubophilia? It would be interesting to see what a story like this does for their sales numbers.

  • Any valid infromation from the White House comes as such a premium since it passes through an intensive propaganda ministry scrubbing before it is shoveled out by scotty…..
    all insider “leaks” come from the Twilight Zone.. Where Rod Serling would narrate…, ” Behold President George W. Bush, the most powerful man on earth- melancholy and drinking alone in the oval office, distrustful and bitter …. He has sadly discovered that impeachment is a state of mind… found only…. in the twilight zone.”
    Fade to theme song….

  • Here’s a crazy notion:

    maybe the warrantless search crap flies into their faces as we all think/hope it might.

    The Repubs “go along” with articles of impeachment (meaning that they have no choice), knowing that if it is handled well and properly…not only will the prez not be impeached, because the repubs still hold the majority, but it will also fire up the base, and possibly propel the repubs into keeping the majority in the mid-terms.

    I know it’s nuts, but…impeachment hearings very soon will most likely go better for Bush than will impeachment proceedings after the next elections.

    • Comments are closed.