The Power of Inspection and the Claim of Impeachment

[babylonsister]

The Power of Inspection and the Claim of Impeachment
by David Bromwich

Last night’s Democratic debate marked the first time a number of candidates have spoken sanely and frankly about the Cheney-Bush design for a world war. Tim Russert asked each candidate to “pledge” to prevent Iran from developing the capacity to make a nuclear weapon. A mindless and demagogic request, and an attempt to corral the Democratic party into the militarism which holds the Republican candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) captive and cheering. Russert was out of line and someone should have told him so. Yet the responses were instructive. Hillary Clinton vowed to do all she could to prevent Iran from acquiring a weapon; when that proved not ripe enough for her questioner, she made it clear she would not please him by upping the ante. What he was after was a pledge to initiate a war by bombing Iran.

Joe Biden explained to Russert that the Middle East holds perils more ominous than the possible attainment of a nuclear weapon by Iran some years from now. Biden did not mention Israel’s 200 nuclear weapons, or its second-strike capacity from submarines. He did bring up Pakistan: another nuclear power, and one whose upheaval would have consequences the U.S. cannot possibly reckon. By his answer, Biden was contributing to the education of the public. They surely hadn’t heard before a sober comparison of Pakistan with Iran, whether from Tim Russert or his colleagues at ABC or what remains of CBS.

The education continued with a fine response by John Edwards that addressed the Cheney-Bush pattern of saber-rattling against Iran. Edwards showed how the pair were following the same protocol that created a stupefied popular consensus against Iraq in 2003. He also used the word “neocon”: a word that many of his listeners might have a broad idea of; more of them, probably, a dim and faint idea. The mere mention of this faction constitutes of a public service, now that they are running not only the president’s foreign policy but the policy apparatus of four Republican candidacies (Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson). Next time, Edwards ought to give a name or two, and connect it with a policy. For the individuals he has in mind are as persistent and remorseless as they are destructive. Their previous field of exercise was Nicaragua.

Chris Dodd offered a vivid recollection of the disaster of Iran-Contra when he recalled his part in negotiating a diplomatic end to the artificially induced civil war in Nicaragua: a war that was begun in America’s name but funded and commandeered in defiance of the law. If Dodd alludes to Nicaragua again, he might mention that the earlier war was fought by American proxies with the tactics of terrorism; that it was a war that ripped apart a society and by its end had killed 30,000; and that it was run from the department of state by the same reckless functionary, Elliott Abrams, who pulls the levers now on American policy in the Middle East. The next time you hear (Dodd could easily say) about an assassination that heats up civil strife in Lebanon with profit to no party in Lebanon, or the latest speculative charge against Iran by the White House, or reports of advanced armaments suddenly in use by Fatah militias, or an Israeli bombing of a supposed nuclear site in Syria, where no evidence is given and no radioactive residue appears–be forewarned that you are seeing the handiwork of Elliott Abrams. This is an administration that has everything to fear from the diffusion of facts. But the facts need to be recited slowly, and the history needs to be recounted with patience.

Dennis Kucinich spoke the word impeachment. Whatever the Democrats may do, it is an idea the party would be irresponsible not to consider. No one who has read the Constitution through the minds of the founders, and followed the history of the past seven years, can doubt that the vice president and the president have committed impeachable offenses. The violation of FISA and the development of a secret policy for circumventing the FISA court are only the clearest instances. The withdrawal of the U.S., in secret, from the Geneva conventions, embodies the same insolence and arrogation. The power of inspection by the Senate and the claim of impeachment have long been understood as the indispensable checks against abuse of power by an ambitious executive.

Against impeachment, there is this to be said, that the majority apparently lack the votes to make it succeed. Yet Nancy Pelosi showed a remarkable absence of political mind when, as the leader of a new majority in a critical time, facing a president out of control, she declared that impeachment was not an option. You don’t reassure an opponent–especially an opponent who understands nothing but the language of force–that the one weapon he rightly fears has been taken out of your arsenal. Besides, there are powers of inspection short of impeachment, which the Democratic Congress has been inexplicably backward in using. Dick Cheney has never held a press conference, and has seldom been asked to answer a question. His chief of staff, David Addington, is unknown on Capitol Hill. Why have they never been called to testify? Say by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (for misconduct in the control of post-invasion Iraq)? Or the Senate Intelligence Committee (for the slanting of estimates on Iraq in 2002-03, on Iran in 2006, on Syria in 2007)? Or by the Judiciary Committee (for overturning in secret the constitutional ban on torture and the legal restrictions on domestic surveillance)? When one thinks of the public education on the war in Vietnam that was supplied by the Foreign Relations Committee under Senator William Fulbright, nothing except timidity and a failure of self-respect can explain the omission of such hearings today.

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/01/4948/

[liberal N proud]

1. Timmy was put up to the task of pinning the Democrats down

He is a whore for the right as much as any other modern day talking head.

[Demeter]

2. Disgusting! Time To Boycott Another One

Write Fox News and Russert off as media contact points for Democrats.

[pat_k]

3. "apparently lack the votes" is a faith-based claim.

I have yet to hear a single verifiable fact that supports "don't have the votes."

On the flip-side, the fact that the Senate voted 90-9 for McCain's anti-torture amendement tells us that articles of impeachment for torture "apparently have the votes." Some Members of Congress may think it's fine and dandy for the USA to be a war criminal nation that's "tough" on those we arbitrarily label "terrorist," but given the vote on McCain's anti-torture amendment, it doesn't look like many are willing to go on the record.

When our so-called leaders tell us "we don't have the votes" they neglect to tell us what "vote" they are talking about. A vote to reject or confirm Presidential "torture power"? Or a vote to impeach/remove for some lesser, legalistic charge?

And since when did they start counting votes of conscience anyway?

Bushncheney openly & proudly tell us they torture. They have done it in executive orders. They have done it in signing statements. They have done it in public forums. They have repeatedly put forth their indefensible "defense." They make the intolerable and blanket claim that the Office of the President can violate any law as long as they clain the violation is necessary to protect us. They are saying "Americans have forbidden the acts in law, but U.S. Code is trumped by Presidential edict." They claim what they do can't be torture because the torturers do not specifically intend to main or kill.

All that remains is to call on Members to endorse or reject their acts and claims. There nothing to "debate." It's long past time to take sides. Are we with the torturers or against them? A single charge of torture is enough to force Members to declare themselves on behalf of the American people.

[reprobate]

6. I have believed for several years that investigations that could lead to

impeachment would, as the truths became public, gather the support of 80% to 90% of the population. That majority I think is large enough to bring votes from both sides of the isle. It would also bring the silent majority of real Americans to the streets in celebration.

Talk to people today and I think you'll find as I do that most are totally fed up with this regime and the anger is building. They are just waiting for some sign that Democrats understand them. If the party would just provide that sign that they are on the side of the people, the people would celebrate like it was new years eve and a new millennium has dawned.

[pat_k]

9. Give voice to outrage and the damn breaks. . .

. . .We see it http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/14">all the time.

I'm with you on the potential level of support, but we've been way past the need for "investigations" for years.

There is no cover up to uncover. Sure, there are crimes yet to be discovered, but torture is more than enough. Bushncheney openly & proudly tell us they torture. They have done it in executive orders. They have done it in signing statements. They have done it in public forums. They have repeatedly put forth their indefensible "defense." They make the intolerable and blanket claim that the Office of the President can violate any law as long as they claim the violation is necessary to protect us. They are saying "Americans have forbidden the acts in law, but U.S. Code is trumped by Presidential edict." They make the absurd claim that torture (e.g., waterboarding) can't be torture because the torturers do not specifically intend to main or kill.

All that remains is to reject their acts and claims. There nothing to "debate." It's long past time accuse and say "Are we with the torturers or against them?" A single charge of torture is enough to force Members to declare themselves on behalf of the American people. Even if there actually were a lack of public support, there may be too few Members willing to go on the record for dictatorial power and torture to save bush and cheney's asses. Success is not just possible, it could be probable if the choice is boiled down to the essense.

The American people are way ahead of Washington. Even people who aren't particularly engaged "get it" far better than many advocates give them credit for. They may not know the details, but they don't need to. The horrors of this administration are "in the air." The assumption that Bush and Cheney do that which we have forbidden is behind the snickers of talking heads. Rendition and torture has made it to the Today show. The assumption that Bush and Cheney are torturing has become fodder for jokes on Leno and Letterman. Since Congress refuses to give the people a way confront and deal with the horrible truth, comedians have stepped in to provide an outlet.

Because no one with real clout/visibility is calling for impeachment (sorry Dennis, we're delighted that you spoke out at the debate, but you don't have enough visibility or clout) it's tough to gauge how many people who would love to see bushncheney removed have been silenced.

Having nobody out there voicing your anger is bad enough, but the establishment isn't just keeping mum, the constant drum beat -- "terrible idea," "impossible," "futile" -- isn't just silencing people, it is persuading them that their desire to impeach is misguided.

None of the few polls that have been done are particularly useful. The only question that comes close to revealing "the silenced" is Newsweek's "At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?" from their http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2753090">Jan 27, 2007 poll. In that one, 58% said they want it "over now."

And that number has undoubtedly grown since January as the Dems prove what we always knew, that there is no "getting things done" or "stopping the war" under rule by signing statement.

The "no public support" meme emanating from DC is particularly bizarre because they are getting hammered on it. There is so "little" support that "At the offices of the Pew Research Center in Washington, Scott Keeter’s in box gets jammed up every so often with hundreds of e-mails asking him to poll on impeachment." and "Pew and other pollsters say they have never seen anything like it." (http://www.democrats.com/why-pew-refuses-to-poll-on-impeachment">link)

There is so "little" support that people like Barney Frank feel the need to "http://www.sfgate.com/flat/archive/2007/10/12/chronicle/archive/2007/10/12/MNKESOESB.html">lash out" because they are so troubled by "people on the left who are insisting on impeachment."

Since taking control, Dems have been getting a steady, and growing, volume of calls on impeachment. They get hit in town meetings. Their impeachophobia blinds them. They write off what they are seeing. They tell themselves "it's just those people on the left."

If someone with the power to actually get impeachment off the ground demanded it, we could see support for impeachment go to 70% overnight. The pent up outrage is out there. Simply opening an outlet could be all that is required. "Making the case" might gain a few more points, but I think we are way past that.

[Hissyspit]

4. k&r

[Gregorian]

5. If there is only one reason for impeachment, it's to reveal the facts.

I don't give a damn about Little Boy Bush. Or The Big Bad Cheney.

Impeachment will subpoena the facts. And they'll be revealed. Period.

This is about America. Not about punishment. I could care less if Bush is convicted. Bush will be forgotten the second he leaves office. America lives on.

[Senator]

7. Failure To Impeach Is Complicity

It is not a duty of office to "make it succeed."

Though a single impeachment article for torture has every chance of succeeding, whatever defeatist reflexes might seem to dictate.

Forget the war. "What did you DO during the torture Mommy/Daddy?" That's the question impeachophobics need to fear.

--

[BridgeTheGap]

8. If Iran is attacked by the U.S., taking impeachment off the table

will have proven a large mistake on the part of the Speaker.
These people are guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and should be held accountable. Cheney's push for the "unitary executive" is a challenge to the balance of power in the Federal Government, particularly the use of signing statements and ignoring existing laws.