Al Gore Explains Why Bush and Cheney Must Be Impeached – Without Using the Word

The title to this post represents my interpretation of Al Gore’s words from his book, “The Assault on Reason”. Yet, Gore does not specifically recommend impeachment, and though I don’t like to acknowledge this, I have even heard him say, on TV when asked, that he does not advocate impeachment.

I say that I don’t like to acknowledge that because I fervently believe that our pResident and Vice pResident must be removed from office, and at the same time I have a great amount of respect for Al Gore. So there’s a bit of cognitive dissonance there. But just a little bit – because it is impossible for me to believe that anyone can say the things that Al Gore did in his book without believing that impeachment and removal from office of George Bush and Dick Cheney is, if not absolutely necessary, at least highly desirable. The way I see it, Al Gore feels obligated to avoid specifically advocating impeachment because to do so would be to impugn the decisions of the leaders of the Democratic Party – his Party. He probably feels that for him to openly advocate impeachment, given the stance of the Democratic Party leaders, would hurt the Party. So, although I can’t say that I agree with him about that decision, I can, at the same time, feel much gratitude towards him for being so outspoken about the great many problems that our nation is confronted with today, especially our being saddled with a worthless nonentity as the pResident of our nation.

So see if you don’t agree with me that Gore is advocating impeachment and removal from office without saying the actual words:

On George Bush’s craving for dominance

A short way to summarize what Al Gore says about Bush with regard to his craving for dominance would be simply that George Bush is a sadistic psychopathic bully. But the way that Gore describes it is much more eloquent, informative and persuasive:

It is deeply disturbing that the administration so frequently uses the word dominance to describe its strategic goals. It is disturbing because an American policy of dominance is as repugnant to the rest of the world as the ugly pictures of those helpless, naked Iraqi prisoners being so “dominated” has been to the people of our country. Dominance is as dominance does. Dominance is… a seductive illusion that tempts the powerful to satiate their hunger for still more power by striking a bargain with their consciences…

I believe it is important to focus specifically on what exactly happened in Abu Ghraib prison and ask whether or not those actions were representative of who we are as Americans. As noted, many of these captives have reportedly died while being broken and humiliated. In the notorious Abu Ghraib prison itself, investigators who documented the pattern of torture estimated that more than 90 percent of the victims were innocent of any charges…

Gore also spends much space in his book documenting the fact that the tragedy at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in George Bush’s “War on Terror” are not at all the result of “a few bad apples”, but rather are the result of policies propounded from the very top.

George Bush’s tyranny and trashing of our Constitution

Next, Gore makes the case that Bush is a tyrant (though he doesn’t use that word), and hints that if he isn’t stopped our democracy will be lost and we will be left with tyranny:

If the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop, imprison citizens on his own declaration, kidnap, and torture, then what can’t he do? After analyzing the executive branch’s claims of these previously unrecognized powers, Harold Koh, dean of Yale Law School, said: “If the president has commander-in-chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution.”

The principle alternative to democracy throughout history has been the consolidation of virtually all state power in the hands of a single strongman or small group that together exercises that power without the informed consent of the governed… Democracies are rare in history. And when they fail, as did Athens and the Roman Republic upon whose designs our Founders drew heavily, what emerges in their place is another strongman regime.

On the balance of power in our constitutional system

Of course, if Bush is to succeed in his goal of turning our country into a tyrannical dictatorship he must usurp the constitutional powers of the other branches of government. Gore explains how he’s doing this:

The top-heavy focus on dominance as a goal for the U.S. role in the world is exactly paralleled by this administration’s aspiration for the role of the president to completely dominate our constitutional system…

The administration has also launched an assault on the right of the courts to review its actions, on the right of the Congress to have information on how the public’s money is being spent, on the right of the news media to have information about the policies that it is pursuing, and on anyone who criticizes its excesses… This same pattern characterizes virtually all of the Bush administration’s policies… and its appetite for power is astonishing…

And keep in mind that Gore wrote his book before the flurry of ignored Congressional subpoenas and the Libby pardon. Of course, those things shouldn’t in the least have surprised anyone who has followed the many crimes of George Bush over the past few years.

Gore concludes his discussion of the unprecedented expansion of executive powers by noting the all-encompassing drive of the Bush administration to usurp the functions of the other branches of government.

The fact that our normal safeguards have thus far failed to contain this unprecedented expansion of executive power is deeply troubling. This failure is due in part to the fact that the executive branch has followed a determined strategy of obfuscating, delaying, withholding information, appearing to yield but then refusing to do so, and dissembling in order to frustrate the efforts of the legislative and judicial branches to restore our constitutional balance. After all, the other branches can’t check an abuse of power if they don’t know it is happening.

This administration has not been content simply to reduce the Congress to subservience. By closely guarding information about their own behavior, they are dismantling a fundamental element of our system of checks and balances. A government for the people and by the people should be transparent to the people. Yet the Bush administration seems to prefer making policy in secret… insulated from any meaningful participation by Congress or the American people…

Some final thoughts

Let’s summarize what Gore has explained about the Bush/Cheney presidency:
 George Bush is a sadistic psychopathic bully
 He ignores our laws and our Constitution and otherwise puts himself above the law
 To consolidate his tyranny he usurps the functions of our other branches of government

In all this, Al Gore is right on target. But I would argue that one of his statements that I quoted above is wrong – perhaps purposely wrong, as a way of showing us the path to reclaim our nation without actually having to say it. Gore said, with regard to Bush’s stonewalling and withholding information from Congress, “After all, the other branches can’t check an abuse of power if they don’t know it is happening”.

Actually that is not true. Our Founding Fathers put an impeachment clause in our Constitution for this very purpose (among others). What better use of the impeachment clause than to hold a President accountable when he fails to observe his Constitutional responsibility to comply with Congress’s demands for oversight of executive abuse of power? And more important yet, what other alternative is there to deal with such a situation? Al Gore said it in his book. The alternative is tyranny.

Now I’ll end this post with a few quotes on the need for impeachment when presidents abuse the power of their office or simply fail to act in the best interests of the nation they were elected to serve – from those who have the authority to speak of these things:

James Madison

It was Madison's view that impeachment was an "indispensable" provision for defending the American experiment - and the American people - "against the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." The promise of another election, at which a wrongdoing executive might be removed, was not enough to provide such protection

Thomas Jefferson

When once a republic is corrupted there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption . . . every other correction is either useless or a new evil.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story

The offences, to which the power of impeachment has been, and is ordinarily applied, as a remedy… has a more enlarged operation, and reaches, what are aptly termed, political offences, growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect, or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests, in the discharge of the duties of political office.

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee in 1974 – on the impeachment of Richard Nixon
Each of the three Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon contained this language:

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Just one. And don't say Kucinich, because part of what makes a good leader is the ability to get people to follow you, which is something he clearly lacks.

None of the rest of them even come close.

He's one of the few in Congress to speak up for impeachment, and he even spoke up about the oil motives for Bush's war.

In my opinion those kinds of things take a lot of courage. To the extent that people aren't following him, that has to do with a lot of factors, many that are beyond his control. I believe that he would make a great President, and if given the chance people would fall in line behind him. Remember, he is a nightmare candidate for the corporate news media, and that is one more big disadvantage that he has.

Anyhow, Gore very well might be a candidate before this is over. I say that he'll make a run at it.

Gore during Katrina, kick ass takin names, doin real work... sweatin his ass off.

Katrina: Just one more reason why Bush must be impeached.

Thanks for this wonderful synopsis.

Congress has a responsibility to investigate the administration and insist on cooperation.

If Dick Cheney refuses to provide relevant records, then impeachment should be out back on the table.

As much as I would like to see the chimp-in-chief impeached, I think that it might be a smarter strategy to go for Cheney first.

The case for impeaching Cheney, is, I would say, a "slam dunk" at this point.

But you are right that Gore cannot be the person to call for impeachment proceedings to be launched.

1. It's the responsibility of our Democratic Senators and Congresspeople - not Al Gore.

2. The media can easily recall the disputed 2000 election and accuse Gore of being a "sore loser".

3. It would undermine Gore's non-partisan efforts to address the climate crisis - including Live Earth.

Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore! :patriot:

Visit Al's site www.algore.com and read his blog http://blog.algore.com

Get ready for Live Earth on 7/7/07: www.liveearth.org

Sign the petitions at www.algore.org and www.draftgore.com

:kick:

But impeaching Bush should also be a slam dunk. here I discuss eight impeachable offenses, most of them slam dunks. But that was before the flurry of ignored subpoenas. If our Founding Fathers knew that our Congress didn't consider ignoring a Congressional subpoena a damn good reason for impeachment they'd be rolling over in their graves.

I enjoyed reading this... thank you.... :thumbsup:

I like your avatar.

I was disappointed when I heard that Feingold wouldn't be a candidate for 2008 -- as I was when I found out that my avatar wouldn't be running.

Kicked and recommended.

is there any legitimacy left in our so called Democracy. It’s as if Congress were to try and impeach these psychopaths something really bad is going to happen to the US. Like maybe the neo-cons will nuke a half a dozen American cities and blame it on some-one else, or maybe the corporate elites will just start shutting down the factories, stop the flow of oil, turn off the lights and send this country back to the Stone Age. So I guess if getting rid of Bush, Cheney, the neo-cons and Nazis meant it would be the end of the world or close to it, I might think differently, but probably not, because as long as psychopaths are allowed to breath free air, humanity will never be free from the evil whims and genocide of tyranny…

It's hard to tell what Bush would do if he saw his regime coming apart.

Here's a post where I speculate about why Dems in Congress may be so reluctant to impeach:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I'm afraid that it probably comes down to what they perceive as political calculation. They probably believe that it will hurt them politically. I disagree with that, but there are many reasons to proceed with impeachment IMO.

"What better use of the impeachment clause than to hold a President accountable when he fails to observe his Constitutional responsibility to comply with Congress’s demands for oversight of executive abuse of power?"

Congress is not that popular, especially partisan opponents in Congress. (Conyers and Pelosi, for example, are not any more popular with Republicans than Ryun and Hastert were with Democrats) It should be 'the public's demands' for open-ness and accountability. In America, 'due process of law' is supposed to happen openly, and the Government answers to the people. It is the public, more than Congress, which has a right to know. Congress only has that right as representatives of the public.

'Habitual disregard of the public interests' and 'manifest injury to the people of the United States' sound like fitting summations of the Bush administration.

I think that you and I equally believe that the Bush administration has exhibited habitual disregard of the public's interests and has done great harm to the people of this country (and the world as well).

When I made the statement that you refer to in the first paragraph of your post, I was referring to Congress as the representative of the public, without making a distinction, since it is Congress who is elected by the people AND who is given the responsibility for impeachment and removal from office. So when a president ignores their subpoenas he is failing in his responsibility to serve the American people.

That's what I meant anyhow. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, I'll have to think about that.

Especially since people right now are not that happy with Congress. Important to emphasize that Congressional subpoenas are not about Congressional power as much as they are about people power.

I think a large portion of the public views Congress as another ruling class, instead of public servants. They are very well paid, and almost impossible to defeat. They just about serve lifetime appointments.

So it is better to say that 'the public has a right to know' instead of 'Congress has a right to know'. Although they seem to say the same thing much of the public will react differently. To the second statement they may react with 'ah, fu&% Congress, who cares about them?' while the same person will say 'darn right' to the first statement.

President and Vice-President!
If Gore doesn't run DK for President and everybody talk to everyone around them: ask what they want, e.g., universal health care, well DK is the only one for Real Universal Health Care!, etc. ask people you talk to what they need and want first, then show how DK is for THEM!

I've also been marvelling at Gore's ability to, once again, say all the right things -- follow the path of moral imperative -- right up to the point that he must actually advocate DOING something.

He just seem genetically incapable of throwing the gauntlet -- rising to action -- pulling the trigger -- or, well ... I guess it's no wonder Tipper's depressed.

---

It was a very hard hitting book.

He could have. Easily. But he chose not to.

He came up short. Again.

--

the book is a broad condemnation of everything bushcheney ever did or said

That he does not come out and call for a specific remedy is perfectly reasonable. The POINT of the book is that reasoned, deliberative discourse is healthy and essential.

Your analysis and interpretation is exactly what he wanted to happen

He states facts, and his presentation of those facts makes his opinion clear. By not then crying out for the solution, he is imploring thinking Americans to consider those facts, have reasonable discussions, and reach carefully thought-out conclusions. No 30-second sound bites - actual thought, discussion, consideration. Such a concept!

It was a very hard hitting book. It would be very hard I think for anyone to read it and accept what he says without crying out for impeachment.

It is impossible for him to have written such a truthful prescient book and not called for impeachment... but again, didn't he? To be honest I too wish he had stated the words, but after reading over his words in this book he essentially does but not directly whether that was his intent or not... he asks us to take it upon ourselves in the very last paragraph of the book: "The question before us could be of no greater moment: Will we continue to live as a people under the rule of law as embodied in our Constitution? Or will we fail future generations by leaving them a Constitution far diminished from the charter of liberty we have inherited from our forebears? Our choice is clear."

And perhaps the fact that he did not specifically use that word shows he did not write this book as a "campaign" book as so many have tried to label it. He actually laid out the argument cogently and logically, and now expects us to pick up the debate and come to that conclusion. Logically, I can't think any other way because for me impeachment is then the logical step. I do have to admit though that for him to publicly state he does not think it is viable does disappoint me, but he is entitled to his opinion as well. If he is doing it to somehow spare the Party, I would think that based on his words in the book that even he realizes that the time has come to put country above Party, as putting Party above country is what actually led us to this point.

Good post. Thanks.

I felt very gratified to read him talk about the Bush administration in such blunt terms. He really called it like it is.

His not calling for impeachment is a little bit like Lincoln not calling for an end to slavery as he was campaigning for President. He hated slavery, but he knew damn well that if he said what he thought about it he couldn't get elected. If he would have called for the abolishment of slavery before he got elected, slavery might have lasted another few decades.

But televised Senate investigation hearings, followed by impeachment hearings, went on for quite some time before he finally resigned.

The whole process took several months. It should not take anywhere near that long with Bush, because the evidence is already out there for everyone to see. It's not like we actually need an investigation to uncover his numerous impeachable crimes.

I wish that one of our presidential hopefuls would show some leadership on this.	Finnfan	Jul-03-07 11:34 PM	#1
I give Kucinich a lot of credit on this	Time for change	Jul-04-07 01:57 AM	#5
good bit, KNR	FogerRox	Jul-03-07 11:43 PM	#2
Nice pictures	Time for change	Jul-04-07 09:59 AM	#8
I have not made a Shermanesque statement	FogerRox	Jul-04-07 12:42 PM	#11
k&r..........	Tarheel_Dem	Jul-04-07 12:10 AM	#3
He laid it all out for us.	fooj	Jul-04-07 12:21 AM	#4
Congress should definitely ratchet up the pressure	Apollo11	Jul-04-07 03:54 AM	#6
Thanks for the links -- Yes, impeaching Cheney should be a slam dunk	Time for change	Jul-04-07 08:03 AM	#7
I believe you nailed it Apollo.	Uncle Joe	Jul-04-07 02:27 PM	#15
Debunking the arguments against Bush/Cheney impeachment	Time for change	Jul-04-07 11:06 AM	#9
"High Crimes and Misdemeanors" -- What should be the bar for impeachment of a pResident?	Time for change	Jul-04-07 12:06 PM	#10
Excellent piece	dogday	Jul-04-07 12:45 PM	#12
Thanks	Time for change	Jul-04-07 04:59 PM	#19
K&R	sfexpat2000	Jul-04-07 12:47 PM	#13
What if 33 GOP Senators plus Lieberman stubbornly refuse to vote for conviction?	Time for change	Jul-04-07 01:48 PM	#14
Thanks for the thread Time for change.	Uncle Joe	Jul-04-07 02:28 PM	#16
The fact that congress seems so unwilling to go after Bush and Cheney leaves me to wonder	Larry Ogg	Jul-04-07 02:52 PM	#17
Yeah, it's really hard for me to figure it out too	Time for change	Jul-04-07 03:56 PM	#18
k&r	me b zola	Jul-04-07 05:00 PM	#20
I would word that differently - the part about oversight	hfojvt	Jul-04-07 05:27 PM	#21
I guess I'm not sure what our disagreement is	Time for change	Jul-04-07 07:18 PM	#22
I just think it appeals to more people if you emphasize the people	hfojvt	Jul-04-07 10:33 PM	#26
I see your point	Time for change	Jul-04-07 11:12 PM	#28
Gore and Kucinich for	burrowowl	Jul-04-07 07:24 PM	#23
Either one would make an excellent President	Time for change	Jul-04-07 11:13 PM	#29
Another Frustrating Failure From Gore	Senator	Jul-04-07 07:48 PM	#24
I think he called for impeachment without saying the word	Time for change	Jul-04-07 11:27 PM	#33
No, he didn't.	Senator	Jul-05-07 03:55 AM	#36
he pulls no punches	frogcycle	Jul-04-07 08:00 PM	#25
Yes, I agree	Time for change	Jul-04-07 11:16 PM	#30
I came to the same conclusion	RestoreGore	Jul-04-07 10:47 PM	#27
Thank you --	Time for change	Jul-04-07 11:23 PM	#31
Okay, from start to finish how long did it take Nixon to get impeached?	KCdemocrat	Jul-04-07 11:26 PM	#32
Did he not resign before impeachment proceedings began?	HDHNTR	Jul-05-07 12:05 AM	#34
Yes, he did	Time for change	Jul-05-07 12:12 AM	#35