The president’s reckless and corrupt commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence seemed to be a tipping point this week. (Or more accurately, the latest in a series of tipping points.) Bush has done plenty of other offensive things, but this one seemed more blatant than most of the others. It left much of the political world wondering, What do we do now?
Obviously, impeachment is an option. Digby had a terrific post on the subject a few days ago, which expressed some skepticism about pursuing this option, particularly in light of the fact that a Senate conviction is a practical impossibility, and the entire effort would probably galvanize the GOP anyway.
“So the question I ask is this — is a failed impeachment going to hold them accountable?” Digby asked. “If so, then I’m for it. But if it actually ends up getting them off the hook, then not so much. It’s not such an easy call. And then there’s the bigger question. What’s the alternative?”
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), a solid and reliable progressive, will be offering an alternative next week, in the form of a congressional censure resolution.
I strongly believe that presidential intervention in this case is an unconscionable abuse of authority by George W. Bush. This is a case of a man lying to protect the President from the consequences of an Administration that chose petty political retribution over national security. And these lies are not about some trivial personal issue. These are lies that sent America to war on false pretenses. […]
Commuting Libby’s sentence is nothing short of political quid pro quo, and Congress must go on record in strong opposition. It is fitting that Congress step forward to express the disgust that Americans rightfully feel toward this contemptible decision. Censuring the president makes the unequivocal statement that this abrogation of justice will not be tolerated. […]
The question should not be whether his corrupt and deceitful actions merit removing him from office. That is its own debate, and one that is not likely to reach a consensus anytime soon. On the other hand, censuring the President for rewarding perjury is a clear cut determination that President Bush has lost sight of the rule of law. Congress has a responsibility to send the unequivocal message that the American people are fed up with an Administration that lacks accountability and holds itself above the law…. [F]or Congress to give silent approval would be unforgivable.
Alright, but is this enough?
Swopa makes a compelling case that censure would be a powerful political statement that would “cut through the clutter.”
It would make a simple declaration — that even if Bush has the technical right to commute Scooter’s sentence, in the view of the Congress, he has sent the most corrupting message a president can possibly send to his administration (“If you break the law while working for me, I’ll make sure you never spend a day in jail”), and it was morally wrong for him to do it.
It’s a message that needs to be sent for future generations, so that Dubya’s pseudo-pardon isn’t treated as an accepted precedent. On a practical basis, it begins to lay out a public case for a possible impeachment. And on a purely political level, it would firmly establish Bush and his apologists (including the craven supplicants campaigning for the 2008 Republican nomination) on the wrong side of a clear moral divide — an absolutely essential step in debunking the essential GOP mythology of firm, paternal rectitude.
The Republicans will respond as they always do, with counter-accusations and smoke machines. But if the Democrats speak plainly and insistently, they can repeatedly drag the subject back to its core: That when an official in his administration breaks the law, the President has no business interfering in that official’s punishment. And he should be censured for it.
On the flip side, plenty of observers believe historical rebukes are just symbolic. Still others believe if Congress is going to go after anyone, it should be Cheney first.
And while we’re at it, there are other alternatives. Jeremy Mayer argues that Congress should consider a constitutional amendment “eliminating the power of the president to pardon himself, the vice president and any political appointee for official acts committed during his term in office.”
For that matter, I’ve seen others argue that all of this is folly, and that Congress’ central focus right now should be on ending the war in Iraq, which should take precedence over punishing a lame-duck president who’ll leave office next year anyway.
So, what’s it going to be?