The ‘I’ word emerges

December 20, 2005

It was only a matter of time before Bush’s warrantless-search program, and the administration’s admission that it violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, led some of the president’s more aggressive congressional critics to start openly discussing the “I” word, among other options. Here’s a sampling of what Dems on the Hill were saying yesterday:

* Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) talked with Nixon White House Counsel John Dean over the weekend and he suggested the NSA story may point to an impeachable offense. Boxer contacted for prominent legal scholars yesterday to consider the question and advise her on whether impeachment is warranted.

* Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) told a radio audience yesterday morning that Bush should be impeached if he broke the law.

* Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-N.Y.) avoided the “I” word but came close, calling for a special prosecutor and insisting that the president “no longer considers himself subject to the laws he is sworn to uphold.”

* Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) also steered clear of impeachment talk, but has begun collecting petition signatures, calling on the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings exploring the extent to which the president broke the law.

I have to admit, I’m a little concerned about the dangers in tossing around the “I” word with too cavalier an attitude. I distinctly recall former Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) calling for Clinton’s impeachment long before the Lewinsky scandal began and he sounded like an unhinged crackpot.

Clearly, in 1998, Republicans lowered the bar considerably on what constitutes an impeachable offense, and in this sense, it’s not unreasonable for Dems to follow the path the GOP blazed. But there are institutional concerns to be considered, not to mention credibility questions when the public starts to think of impeachment as just another routine political tool. Oh, and there’s also the small matter of not having enough votes to pull it off.

I hate to sound overly cautious, but I think Nadler and Slaughter are on the right track. The president has positioned himself above the law (again). Dems should scream bloody murder, demand hearings, and insist that the president abide by the law. But keeping the impeachment arrow in the quiver a while longer is probably a good idea.

A special prosecutor is the way to go as Rep. Nadler suggests, although one wonders if the GOP will allow this seeing the fruits of the Fitzgerald investigation (maybe the Dems can call for Fitzgerald to handle this??). and I will link again to TPM for an interesting read:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007290.php

  • You know, I have to say I’m a bit dissappointed in your reasoning CB.

    The president said that the leak of this NSA story threatens our national security, but somehow the leak of a CIA agent’s name does not.

    Then, Cheney says that Watergate eroded the president’s authority, but says nothing about the erosion of law or civil rights.

    There is a law on the books, The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that this administration has totally trampled. The President of the United States is sworn to uphold the laws of this land.

    At what point do we stop giving this group a pass?? At what point do the actions of the president become impeachable??? I think we are way past that point, apparently you do not. I-M-P-E-A-C-H

    Here’s a little something from the Cato Institute (right-wing, I believe) that was published back in 1998 that I think supports the need for Impeachment:

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-318es.html

    Although there is a debate among academic scholars concerning the range of possible impeachable offenses, most agree that indictable offenses fall within the class of impeachable offenses. There is a fundamental inconsistency, they argue, between a president’s oath to faithfully execute the law and his having himself committed offenses indictable under that law.

    But beyond that, the office of the presidency is an office of trust and honor. The winner of a presidential election has only a qualified right to enter and hold the office of the presidency. He cannot assume the office without taking the constitutional oath. If a president should thereafter abrogate his oath, Congress has a responsibility to vindicate the Constitution and the rule of law it secures.

  • You need some extremists to blaze the trail. Boxer and Lewis run around aggressively pushing for impeachment. Then the leadership follows stressing innocence and the need for careful and thoughtful action. This prevents everyone being painted as a whacko but brings up the subject and allows the leadership to look moderate. I’m concerned that we need to time any push for tossing Bush out on his ass. If we wait does he improve his standing or as recent events have unfolded make it worse? It needs to be managed carefully.

    My other question is this, do we want Presidnet Cheney? Do we take him down too? What about President Hastert? President Ted Stevens?!!!! AHHHHHRG! What is the upside other than another devistating Rebublican scandal and saving our Republic?

  • Oh, and there’s also the small matter of not having enough votes to pull it off.

    If we let Bush et al stew in their own juices and keep the “over-spicing chefs” (those who call for impeachment) away from the stove, perhaps the public’s Bush fatigue will become a rage and the Republicans will pay the price in future elections. The Democrats have to guard against getting too far out in front of the public. Time must be bided, before we can succeed.

  • Just brilliant. Start with the blowtorch instead of the match. Does anyoen remember in “All The President’s Men” Deep Throat’s advice:

    –you’ve done worse than let Haldeman
    slip away, you’ve got people feeling
    sorry for him–I didn’t think that
    was possible. A conspiracy like this–
    the rope has to tighten slowly around
    everyone’s neck. You build from the
    outer edges and you go step by step.
    If you shoot too high and miss, then
    everybody feels more secure. You’ve
    put the investigation back months.

    “Never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

    That was generally a statement applied to the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat.

    It seems to apply to the 2000 era Dems, too.

  • Our Emperor/President has decided to not only not be abashed for getting caught breaking the law, he promises to break the law more. And expects people to not only go along with it but thank him for doing so, as well.

    America is on the verge of literally becoming a police state, and if the Bush crime syndicate isn’t brought to heel soon there’s no telling what greater atrocities it may commit. Congress has to rise up and take a stand for the rule of law. That’s what we pay them for and it’s about time they started doing their job.

    Impeachment is not a four-letter word, and when the president commits impeachable offenses then he should be brought to justice. That’s the law, and for once it should be applied to those who deserve its attention.

  • Please read Fafblog’s Dec. 14th post by Medium Lobster:
    http://fafblog.blogspot.com

    “The Zen of Iraq

    Today’s koan comes to us from none other than the aged master George Bush, bodhisattva of gratuitous bloodshed:
    One day a young monk came before Bush and said to him, “There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no threat from Saddam. Why then is there a war?”

    Bush replied, “True, there was no threat to justify the war. But still there was a threat, and the war is justified.”
    A moment, now, to pause and reflect on the teachings of the war-buddha.

    Like many of Bush’s parables, this one plays with the contrast between reality and illusion: the tax cuts will shrink the deficit but the deficit is bigger than ever, America does not torture but America must keep torture legal. The worldly eye sees these as contradictions, lies, and distortions; the enlightened mind sees them as multiple facets of the same transcendent truth.”

  • Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) … sounded like an unhinged crackpot.

    But nevertheless, Clinton was impeached.

    But there are institutional concerns to be considered, not to mention credibility questions when the public starts to think of impeachment as just another routine political tool.

    Two wrongs don’t make a right. Failing to impeach Bush for genuine high crimes and misdemeanors (deceiving the country into war, warrantless spying on citizens) would be as bad as a groundless impeachment of Clinton for political advantage.

  • Impeachment is the only process available under the US Constitution to investigate possible crime or maladministration by the President. The President is, technically, impeached by the House (as happened with Clinton) and then tried by the Senate. Impeachment is not equivalent to “removal from office.”

    I strongly advocate the institution of impeachment proceedings against President Bush. I understand the divisive and potentially corrosive nature of the process. I understand that in the event Bush is removed from office, Dick Cheney will become President (assuming he hasn’t himself been accused of a crime or resigned.) Notwithstanding, I believe that the time has come to begin the impeachment process. Any other action accomodates this embryonic dictatorship and erodes the authority of our Constitution If not now, when? If not Bush, who?

  • Let’s see, we have a President whose latest talking point is “I am above the law” who has already demonstrated that he loves petty retribution (everything from Wilson to Clinton at a conference).

    Now, the evil dead guy hooked to a car battery is telling us that this is a proper pushback to pre-watergate powers…

    What, exactly, are we saving the I word for?

    -jjf

  • We don’t have control now. That’s why it can’t happen. The Deep Throat quote is right — you’ve got to tighten slowly, like a noose.

  • Bill O’Reilly was throwing the “i” word around a lot yesterday on the radio, even though he was defending the wiretaps. But he was clearly saying that Bush should be impeached if they were abusing their powers, and he seemed to believe that the Republicans would do it.

    It was as if the idea of impeachment was being thrown around by everyone, judging by the matter-of-fact way he talked about it. He’s still full of it, but if O’Reilly is talking about impeachment so casually, Bush is in trouble.

  • “I’m a little concerned about the dangers in tossing around the “I” word with too cavalier an attitude.”

    WHAT? The president is caught breaking the law since u-don’t-know-when, he publicly declares he has absolute power, and you ‘re wondering if a demand for impeachment is ” too cavalier an attitude”? Really, what else has to happen, maybe Bush actually using this self proclaimed absolute power to put large numbers of US citizen into concentration camps???

  • Dave G., you’re probably right. Bush’s war on Christmas is going to turn off a lot of his supporters who don’t normally care about the Constitution.

  • “Bill O’Reilly was throwing the “i” word around a lot yesterday on the radio, even though he was defending the wiretaps. But he was clearly saying that Bush should be impeached if they were abusing their powers, and he seemed to believe that the Republicans would do it.”

    This is the counter move to the whacko liberal calling for his head. O’Reilly shouts for his (W’s) head and when the Rebpublicans do nothing then he uses his call for action and the subsequent inaction “proof” that Bush must be doing nothing wrong.

    Either that or he really wants to see Cheney in the big chair because he knows Cheney will tell anyone who disagrees with him to cram it with walnuts.

  • In contrast to Clinton who belatedly fessed up to lying to a grand jury in an unrelated case about a blow job, Bush just admitted to a national radio audience that he broke the law and will do it again. Tossing around the I word in that circumstance is not wingnutty, it is ientirely justified.

  • In response to a few comments, I think CB is wise to play a wait-and-see approach. At this point the story hasn’t been followed up on, hasn’t been absorbed and left to stir in the minds of Americans. No polls have been done on what Americans think of it.

    We all want this to look as bad as it possibly could, and so it does to us. But we could be wrong. Remember, Bush wanted Iraq to have WMDs so badly it just assumed they would be there when we went in. Wait it out and see if the story gets corroborated and gels in the national consciousness and ticks off enough of the populace that we COULD get the votes to do it, let the left wing start the conversation of impeachment, while it’s still the knee-jerk thing to do, and unless the story ends up getting mitigated in some way more and more people will start thinking of impeaching. Christmas is next weekend, and a lot of people will be with their families, which is an excellent time for a lot of cross-party interaction among most Americans, it will provide an excellent time for people to absorb and develop opinions about this.

    That made sense, right?

  • If I thought the Republicans were that smart, I’d swear they impeached Clinton because they knew they were going to make an unprecedented power grab when they won the White House, and were “immunizing” themselves against impeachment, thinking the American people wouldn’t stomach back to back impeachments. But they’re not that smart, …are they?

  • But what about how Bob Barr feels now?

    BARR: Here again, this is absolutely a bizarre conversation where you have a member of Congress saying that it’s okay for the president of the United States to ignore U.S. law, to ignore the Constitution, simply because we are in an undeclared war.

    The fact of the matter is the law prohibits — specifically prohibits — what apparently was done in this case, and for a member of Congress to say, oh, that doesn’t matter, I’m proud that the president violated the law is absolutely astounding, Wolf.

    ROHRABACHER: Not only proud, we can be grateful to this president. You know, I’ll have to tell you, if it was up to Mr. Schumer, Senator Schumer, they probably would have blown up the Brooklyn Bridge. The bottom line is this: in wartime we expect our leaders, yes, to exercise more authority.

    Now, I have led the fight to making sure there were sunset provisions in the Patriot Act, for example. So after the war, we go back to recognizing the limits of government. But we want to put the full authority that we have and our technology to use immediately to try to thwart terrorists who are going to — how about have a nuclear weapon in our cities?

    BARR: And the Constitution be damned, Dana?

    • Comments are closed.