15 Democrat excuses
After reading about the need to impeach Bush/Cheney people ask: Why doesn’t the Democrat Congress impeach? Below is an excerpt from an excellent article describing 15 reasons timid Democrats in Congress give for not doing their duty to remove a negligent and criminal executive team. Excuse 12 gets closest to the target: the Democrats’ cynical calculations about elections, rather than doing the public’s work. Democrats want Bush and Cheney in office because they will get more votes in November with them there, than if they are removed.
This raises the question: Who does more damage to democracy: the minority of fascists or their enablers?
Is Peace or Impeachment Possible?
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/possible
Submitted Sun, 2007-09-16 15:03. By David Swanson
[Remarks at September 15, 2007, impeachment rally in Miami, Fla., organized by www.floridaimpeach.org ]
They have about 15 excuses, most of which are very easily rejected, a few of which it is going to be very hard but not impossible for us to get around.
Excuse #1: You can't judge articles of impeachment prior to a committee investigation. That gets the process out of order:
This is a complaint with Kucinich's bill, which lays out three specific charges against Cheney. Inslee's bill on Gonzales got around this by simply proposing that the Judiciary Committee investigate whether Gonzales had committed impeachable offenses. A new bill could do the same for Bush and Cheney and would not have to be wholly devoid of content. It could suggest the area or areas of inquiry.
Excuse #2. We don't have all the facts we need in order to impeach.
Well, of course that's what an impeachment investigation is for. But in fact we do have the facts. The Judiciary Committee passed an article of impeachment against Nixon for refusing to comply with subpoenas. Bush and Cheney and Rice have indisputably refused to comply with subpoenas. That one is an instant impeachment. Just add backbone. The signing statements is another instant impeachment. So is Bush's confessed violation of FISA, although it is complicated politically by Congress's recent legalization of this crime. Bush is on videotape being warned about Hurricane Katrina and on videotape claiming he wasn't. He and Cheney are on videotape lying about the reasons for war, and the evidence that they knew they were lying is overwhelming. That is the impeachable offense our founding fathers most worried about. James Madison and George Mason both argued as well at the Constitutional Convention that impeachment would be needed if a president ever pardoned a crime that he himself was involved in. The commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence (another notable ass-kissing little chicken shit) is another obvious impeachment. The list is endless. Congressman Conyers has published a lengthy book documenting many of the felonies and abuses of power.
Excuse #3: Impeachment would take too long.
Nixon took 3 months. Clinton took 2. They've spent 9 thus far avoiding it, and with very little to show for it. Impeachment for refusal to comply with subpoenas would take one day.
Excuse #4: Impeachment would distract from other things.
Yeah? Like what? Since when is restoring the Bill of Rights a distraction? A distraction from funding wars and legalizing spying is fine with me. A distraction from passing bills that will be vetoed does not worry me.
Excuse #5: We need to focus on ending the war.
OK, but if you focus on ending the war for two full years and don't actually end it, I wish you luck getting people to turn out next November. When Congress moved toward impeachment of Nixon, it found the nerve to end a war, and he backed off on his veto threats. Congress passed a menu of progressive legislation in part because of, not despite, the impeachment threat hanging over Nixon. And ultimately of course impeachment is going to be needed to end the current occupation of Iraq.
Excuse #6: Impeachment would be divisive.
Actually that's not true among Democrats. Eighty percent favor impeachment. But as far as bipartisan harmony on Capitol Hill goes, the dangers of creating divisiveness is sort of like the danger of violence breaking out if we leave Iraq. It's too late already! And it's too late because the Republicans never give a damn for bipartisan harmony. Were they in the majority with a Democratic president holding the all-time record for unpopularity, they would long ago have impeached him and forced every Democratic Congress member to either defend him or run away from their own party. Does anybody remember Al Gore picking Joe Lieberman as a running mate and pretending he'd never met Bill Clinton? That was the result of an impeachment without a Senate conviction. (John Nichols says: impeachment is not a constitutional crisis. It's the cure for the one we're in. Aspirin is not a headache crisis. Impeachment is not a constitutional crisis.)
Excuse #7: We don't have the votes in the House to impeach.
Well, you would if Pelosi whipped on it. And Congress members back bills all the time that are not predicted to pass. If their colleagues fail to join them, that's between their colleagues and their colleagues' constituents. And again, impeachment usually does its work without getting all the way to impeachment. A move to impeach for refusal to comply with subpoenas, for example, might result in compliance with subpoenas. And it is the only thing that might. Holding people in contempt through the courts will take forever and probably fail. Inherent contempt is a tool Congress doesn't have the backbone for. And Congress is not about to use either type of contempt against Bush or Cheney.
Excuse #8: We don't have the votes in the Senate to convict.
Well, you might if you put the crimes on television and if the house impeached. But you would do good for the nation and Democrats would do good for their party even with a Senate acquittal. Nothing would better identify for the public the Senators who need to be thrown out of office. And impeachment even without conviction would reverse the public perception of Democrats as having no spine. They may hold even in the next election without impeaching anyone or getting us out of Iraq, but if they want to win new seats, and if they want to win the White House with a large enough margin to not have the election stolen, they will reverse their current position and act!
Excuse #9: I won't sign onto Kucinich's bill because he hasn't asked me to, and he's a liberal, and he's running for president.
Well, yes, dear Congressman or Congresswoman, but this is the government of the world's largest and most powerful empire. This isn't high school. We expect you to sign onto a bill based on the merits of it, or to introduce your own.
Excuse #10: You can't impeach over policy differences because you don't like war. You have to impeach for a crime.
Well, Kucinich's bill charges Cheney with the felony that involves misleading Congress and with the crime of threatening war on Iran. Cheney is on videotape doing so. Conyers' book lists lots of felonies. But in fact, not every crime is an impeachable offense and not every impeachable offense is a crime. When Nixon cheated on his taxes or Clinton cheated on his wife and lied about it under oath, no impeachable offenses were committed. When Nixon lied to the public or when Bush ignored warnings prior to 9/11, no crimes were committed, but the offenses were impeachable.
Excuse #11: If I backed impeachment, the media would be mean to me.
Yes, Congressman; Yes, Congresswoman. And if you don't people will die. Which is worse? A majority backs impeachment now for Cheney and a majority or close to it for Bush. Those numbers will go up, not down, if you act, regardless of what the media says. You know those 18 percent of Americans who approve of the job you're doing? Even they don't like the media. No campaign email raises more money than one that begins, "Fox News just attacked me."
That's 11 excuses so far. I think those 11 can be refuted. The next four are harder to get around.
Excuse #12: Impeachment would make Bush and Cheney sympathetic and rally people around them.
The idea of making Cheney in particular an object of sympathy may seem ludicrous. But then so did the idea that Saddam Hussein was about to attack us with unmanned aerial vehicles. Common sense is not enough in Washington. We need hard numbers. I think Congress should start with Cheney and watch as Republicans are forced to abandon him. The Republicans would have done this to the Democrats years ago. The idea that impeachment would help Bush and Cheney originated in Republican National Committee talking points published in May 2006. Pelosi immediately adopted the idea as her own. It flies in the face of the historical record. When the Republicans have moved impeachment, as against Truman for example, they've benefited at the polls. When the Democrats tried to impeach Nixon, who was popular compared to Cheney or Bush, they won huge victories. When they promised not to impeach Reagan, they lost in the next elections. The exceptional case is the Clinton impeachment which was uniquely unpopular. Nonetheless, the Republicans hung onto both houses of Congress and the White House. In fact, they lost very few seats, fewer than is the norm at that point in the tenure of a majority in Congress. The Democrats may be risking more by not impeaching than they would be by doing it. But unless we can get polls done in swing districts that show overwhelmingly that the Democrats will lose seats by not impeaching, they are unlikely to act. This is what their staffers tell me. And polls showing they'd gain seats by impeaching may not be enough, if they think they'd do OK without it. And we'll have to show that Republicans save their seats by backing impeachment if we want any Republicans to act. Of course this is all utterly disgusting. Human life and the future of democracy are not concerns that even come up. It's all about elections.
Excuse #13: Impeachment would remind people of Bill Clinton.
Well, would that be so horrible? I was no fan of Bill Clinton, but compared to Bush and Cheney he looks like a saint.
Excuse #14: Nancy Pelosi opposes impeachment.
Excuse #15: Hillary Clinton opposes impeachment.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Bush/Cheney Violate Law Requiring Anti-Terror Plans
Madam President? Impeach Now Before it is Too Late:
Government Report, Democrats, Accuse Bush of Violations for Missing Plans Mandated by Congress to Deal with Threat of Terrorism
The Bush Administration and the mainstream news media would have us believe that the greatest current threat to our national security is from Iran. In fact, the leading threat to the United States is the current administration's own negligence. Despite repeated official warnings that there is an imminent threat to the US origininating on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, the Bush administration has refused, in violation of federal law, to make plans to deal with that threat.
Until now the Democratic Congress has declined to make Bush and Cheney accountable for all the various laws they have broken since 2001 in the only effective way it can: impeachment. They worry that though Congress may impeach, the Senate will not vote by the necessary 2/3 majority to convict. In the calculation of Democrat vote-counters, the inevitable failure of the Senate to convict on the impeachment charges (lacking a 2/3 Democrat Senate majority) does not justify the risk that impeachment by the House might cost them the margin of victory in 2008. They fear some voters may see impeachment as the kind of divisive and diversionary party politics that the Republicans displayed when they controlled Congress during the Clinton era. Meanwhile many voters are reinforced in their doubts whether the Congressional Democrats constitute an authentic opposition party. And we all have to take the chance that the incompetent Bush Administration will do no further irreversible damage to the security, economy and Constitution of the United States - such as by making an illegal attack on Iran - before adult supervision is restored to the executive branch.
But the frat-boy in chief has just been caught breaking one law, discussed below, that could soon have the most devastating consequences for the country, and therefore should cause Democrats to recalculate. After the crime of the century, Bush, acting like a small town sheriff took his posse out to capture the killers, and ended up in the wrong town. Made a real mess of that, too. His cowardly town council suggested politely where the killer gang had actually holed up, asked the sheriff to make a plan to go shut down their hideout and break up the gang. They did not ask him to actually do it. He was still too mired in his own incompetence and the mess he made of the other town. Just a plan is all the timid council wanted, so they would not be criticized at the next election in case something happened.
There is new evidence that something very bad might be about to happen, and it is not coming from Iran. Even after their own 2002 national security strategy, and The 9/11 Commission Report (Washington D.C.: GPO, 2004) recommended a plan for dealing with the threat from the Afghanistan/Pakistan frontier, the Decider and his uncle Dick never made that plan. So Congress passed laws requiring them to make a plan, and to submit their plan to Congress. Bush and Cheney made excuses that they needed to eavesdrop on phone calls, torture, and otherwise rip up the Constitution or they couldn’t take care of the killer gang – but made no mention of dealing with the killers’ known hideout in the remoter regions of a supposed ally in the "war on terror." They figured if al Qaeda came back to town, they could blame the failure on Congress for not going along with appointing them dictators. After the next terrorist catastrophe the cowering Democrats just might agree to take that last step toward scrapping democracy in America. Making a plan to actually go out and do the job they took an oath to do – defend the Constitution and faithfully carry out the duties of their executive office - would just get in their way. So they never did make the comprehensive plan to deal with the threat from the Pakistan frontier that they were required to do by law. Until now the timid Congress has been played like a fiddle.
Then reality got in the way. The Director of National Intelligence, in the 2008 Annual Threat Assessment, concluded that,
In light of these unaniumous, uncontested intelligence findings, the question about those missing plans to deal with a “likely” second attack on America originating from the Pakistan frontier gets attention. This is where the negligent Bush Afghanistan war strategy had chased the al Qaida and Taliban leadership. Congress’ Government Accountability Office followed up with its April 17 report on the status of Bush administration planning against a second attack from this same group, confirming that there is “[n]o comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals … as … mandated by congressional legislation.” The GAO adds its recommendation that the Administration comply with the law by developing such a plan “using all elements of national power to combat the terrorist threat and close the associated safe haven in Pakistan’s [frontier] region.” On May 6, GAO followed up with a report about the $10 billion given by Bush to his favorite dictator, Musharraf. The Report concludes that Pakistan’s use of the funds has gone to troops lacking in counterinsurgency capability and who failed to provide security in the frontier areas.[3]
The Democratic Congress is now on formal notice of what they already knew: there is no comprehensive and coordinated plan to deal with the threat coming from the Pakistan frontier due to Bush and Cheney’s violations of law. If the US had a plan it might be ready, for example, to jump in with economic, political, intelligence and even security support for the new Awami National Party (ANP) government of Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) after the secular ANP soundly defeated the pro-Taliban party, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) in the February 18, 2008 elections.
Meanwhile, on a parallel track, the Senate recently became aware of the consequences of the Bush/Cheney administration failure to form and competently implement a comprehensive plan next door in Afghanistan. A consensus has developed in the United Nations, NATO and various national security think tank reports that the effort next door in Afghanistan is also failing in part due to the lack of coordinated implementation of a coherent strategy. Senate Democrats, in their April 6, 2008 letter to the President, quotes the most prestigous of the U.S. think tank reports, the “prominent nonpartisan report chaired by Marine General (Ret.) James L. Jones and former Undersecretary of State Thomas R. Pickering” which recommends a “clear and consistent comprehensive strategy” for Afghanistan.[4] Formulating and applying comprehensive strategy is a function of leadership, which all know has been lacking in US Afghanistan policy.
The 46 Democratic Senators wrote in their letter to President Bush:
The unsuccessful George W. Bush is now, at 71%, the most unpopular president since records have been kept. If the US had a parliamentary system he and his administration would be long gone, and the country would already have started addressing the many serious problems he leaves in his wake. But Bush’s failings go beyond unpopularity to at least the “misdemeanor” charges of criminal negligence and law breaking that is jeopardizing national security, and is also the test for impeachment. In his classic nineteenth-century constitutional text, Thomas M. Cooley of the Michigan Supreme Court wrote that impeachment is appropriate for "inexcusable neglects of duty, which are dangerous and criminal because of the immense interests involved and the greatness of the trust which has not been kept."
Impeachment is the American way to pass leadership when a President (and Vice President in this case) have worn out their welcome, and also broken the law or public trust. In this case the violations are flagrant. Their “negligent” failure of leadership in Afghanistan may be a matter for proof and judgment, and therefore the subject of hearings. With respect to Pakistan the evidence has been investigated and officially delivered by GAO: as GAO found in its report, the administration did not “report to Congress on its plans for assisting Pakistan in (1) combating terrorism and (2) closing terrorist safe havens, as required by both the 2004 and 2007 legislation.” Little further investigation is required to impeach on this count alone. The refusal to comply with such a significant legal requirement is both highly important and impeachable.
If al Qaida terrorists do succeed in striking the U.S. again as a result of these multiple failures by the Bush administration, will the American people pause to understand the cause and assess responsibility for the failures after the fact, or would they once again fall for tough, though misguided, talk from the executive – and follow them down yet another wrong road as they did into Iraq? Would there be sufficient public space for rational discussion to assess responsibility and adjudicate negligence, or would there be another wave of patriotism that paralyzes all thought? Unless Democrats know the answers to these questions, they can no longer afford to leave the national security leadership vacuum unaddressed. Both the Senators' accusation of the threat to national security posed by Bush’s negligence in Afghanistan and the GAO’s allegation of administration recidivism in failing to take the legally required steps to defend the country against its “preeminent threat” on the Pakistan frontier call for a remedy that only Congress can administer. That would not be just another letter to be ignored by Bush. The urgency of the danger requires a stiffer response to this ignorant and unreflective President known for not changing his mind no matter how reviled he may be by the American public.
Senator Obama already sent a letter on this subject to President Bush as early as July 12, 2007, at the time when the Senate was considering the law that required the Bush Administration's submission to Congress, within 90 days, of a comprehensive strategy to deal with the al Qaeda safe haven on the Pakistan frontier. He said, with the appropriate sense of urgency, nearly one year ago:
The Threat Assessment, the GAO report, and the new expert consensus on Afghanistan should all cause the Democrats to now revise their political calculation about impeachment. If the al Qaeda attack does come, all expectations are that the consequences will considerably exceed the devastation of their last attack. The Democrats would be in a far better position if they were in the process of removing, or had already removed, Bush and Cheney for their failure to comply with the laws that Congress enacted to require plans to prevent such an attack. The responsibility for failure needs to be alleged in advance of the catastrophe, when there is still time to prevent it, not after the fact when it will look like typical partisan finger pointing on a subject too profound, and at a time too late, for finger pointing.
The only effective response to the Bush administration’s unlawful and negligent failure to take the necessary steps to defend the country is the immediate impeachment of the two executives responsible for failing to deal with the source of the threat. This is the wedge issue behind which lies a litany of impeachable offenses currently seeking a forum, including the fraudulent initiation of a war of aggression in violation of the UN Charter, condoning torture in violation of the War Crimes Act of 1996, engaging in domestic surveillance in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and other statutes, reckless failure to mobilize emergency resources in response to Katrina, and the many intentional failures "to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (Constitution, Art.II, Sec. 3) found in a long trail of presidential “signing statements.” There is also documented gross mismanagement of public funds in Iraq and in the Pentagon.
A new book by one of the country’s foremost prosecutors in recent times, Vincent Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (May 2008), claims that he could get an indictment and conviction of Bush for murder due to some of these acts. Another former prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega has authored and published a detailed indictment United States v. George W. Bush et al. Yet another former prosecutor, the former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, has fully briefed The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens (Nation Books, with Cynthia L. Cooper). If Congress is too busy to uphold the rule of law it should retain one or more of these prosecutors to obtain any further evidence for impeachment in Committee and argue the case for impeachment to the House
Some of the detailed grounds for indictment formulated by these experienced prosecutors relate to the wedge issue, the failure of Bush and Cheney to protect the national security of the United States through competent planning and execution. On this core question the lead witnesses will be from the military and security community. The military has provided the front-line victims of the Bush administration. Among the many such experts who have already written or spoken of the incompetence and failure of leadership of Bush and Cheney, the first witness should be Ricardo S. Sanchez, former commander in Iraq who in his new book Wiser in Battle (Harper Collins, 2008) accuses the Bush administration of “gross incompetence and dereliction of duty” resulting in the waste of "hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars" and of "American soldiers [who] were unnecessarily wounded, maimed, and killed."
The new book from leading national security expert Richard A. Clarke, Your Government Failed You: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disasters (Harper Collins, May 2008) describes how,
Impeachment is the American way to cast a “vote of no confidence” by way of political indictment. An overwhelming majority of Americans consistently report that they have no confidence in Bush and Cheney. Dispproval recently reached 71%. They are entitled to know why Congress will not act on that lack of confidence and initiate impeachment proceedings. In a nationwide FOX News Poll of registered voters in May 2006 48% of Democras thought it would be right to impeach President Bush, with 9% unsure. A national poll conducted by American Research in July 2007 showed that 45% of Americans favor impeachment of Bush and 54% favor impeachment of Cheney. A November 13, 2007 American Research Group national poll of registered voters reported that 50% of Democrats believe Bush has abused his powers as president and should be impeached and removed from office., and 63% think the same of Cheney.
It would not only be clever preemptive politics for Democrats to initiate impeachment proceedings immediately; it might also protect the nation’s security if the Senate could act quickly, and enough Republicans like Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) joined the effort. If Congress can finally take responsibility for discharging a floundering, unpopular and incompetent administration that lacks the confidence of the country, instead of timidly waiting for voters to do the job, next in line of succession to set things aright would be the highest ranking Democrat: Nancy Pelosi.
Article I, Section 3, paragraph 7 of the Constitution provides: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." Even if the conviction by a 2/3 vote of the Senate arrives only after the Democrats increase their majority in November, and thus too late to remove the culprits from office, this belated conviction would at least assure us that the group of Bush administration law-breaking incompetents will lose their privilege to hold public office ever again, while establishing some minimal benchmark of competence and legality in the future exercise of executive power. This would communicate that Americans have finally awakened to what the rest of the world has known for years, and constitute something of a public apology for allowing the criminality and negligence to go unchecked for so long, to the damage of so many.
A speech writer included in a recent George Bush speech the accurate observation that weak states are what most threatens US security. It has been obvious for some time that rebuilding those states is the US’s foremost security challenge. But the loss of credibility suffered by the US as a result of the Bush administration’s criminal record now makes any US contribution to statebuilding a far far more difficult task. As with virtually everything else George Bush has done in his two unfortunate terms, not only has he been incapable of bringing enough competence to bear to accomplish his announced faith-based goals, but the actions he has taken have been counterproductive as to the real world goals that must be but now will be much harder and more expensive to accomplish after he is gone. Every day he remains in office he aggravates these problems, while impeachment would reverse much of the damage by demonstrating that in the U.S. democracy does work, and the U.S. does have sufficient credibility to assist in building a legitimate state elsewhere.
On May 8 the person empowered to initiate impeachment proceedings, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr., issued yet another letter to President Bush. He quoted Senator Joe Biden, who lacks the power to initate impeachment, saying that "the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach".[7] The world can’t wait. The California Impeachment Slate is running candidates for impeachment against the timid congressional incumbents in more than 20 of the 53 statewide districts. Conyers and his Democratic colleagues need to stop writing letters to Bush, except the one that informs him and his vice president of the commencement of impeachment proceedings against both elected executives under Art.II, Sec.4 of the U.S. Constitution.
George Washington established the precedent that even the greatest of our presidents are subject to the rule of law and must operate within the Constitution. This most important of his legacies set a straight course for our country. How can Congress now permit the least, most incompetent, of our presidents to trample on the rule of law and our Constitution without any effort to return our course to the path set by Washington? A Democratic Congress is shaming this country's most precious tradition before the whole world by its cowardly refusal to initiate impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
Senator Obama has called on Democrats to end the “politics of fear.” The first step toward ending the Democrats' fear of fighting the damage done to the rule of law and national security of our country by the Bush-Cheney administration is to exercise its Constitutional power and obligation to initiate impeachment proceedings.
Let Rep. Conyers know your opinion:
(202) 225-3951
(202)-225-5126,
(202) 224-3121
(313) 961-5670
(734) 675-4084
[1] Quoted in, United States Government Accountability Office, Combating Terrorism: The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, GAO-08-622 (Washington, D.C.: GAO, 17 April 2008).
[2] Hearing Of The Senate Armed Services Committee Annual Threat Assessment, at 5.
[3] Preliminary Observations on the Use and Oversight of U.S. Coalition Support Funds Provided to Pakistan, GAO-08-735R (Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2008).
[4] Afghanistan Study Group, Report: Revitalizing Our Efforts Rethinking Our Strategies, Co-Chairs, General James L. Jones, USMC (Ret.) & Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, 2d ed. (Center for the Study of the Presidency January 30, 2008)
[5] Commission on Weak States and US National Security, On the Brink, Jeremy M. Weinstein, John Edward Porter, and Stuart E. Eizenstat, eds. (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution and the Center for Global Development 2004 )
[6] http://obama.senate.gov/press/070712-obama_calls_on_10/
[7] Letter from John Conyers, Jr to President George Bush, citing Adam Leach, "Biden: Impeachment if Bush Bombs Iran," Portsmouth Herald, Nov. 29, 2007.
The author Rob Hager is a lawyer who has worked in Afghanistan for the United Nations and other international organizations.
Government Report, Democrats, Accuse Bush of Violations for Missing Plans Mandated by Congress to Deal with Threat of Terrorism
The Bush Administration and the mainstream news media would have us believe that the greatest current threat to our national security is from Iran. In fact, the leading threat to the United States is the current administration's own negligence. Despite repeated official warnings that there is an imminent threat to the US origininating on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, the Bush administration has refused, in violation of federal law, to make plans to deal with that threat.
Until now the Democratic Congress has declined to make Bush and Cheney accountable for all the various laws they have broken since 2001 in the only effective way it can: impeachment. They worry that though Congress may impeach, the Senate will not vote by the necessary 2/3 majority to convict. In the calculation of Democrat vote-counters, the inevitable failure of the Senate to convict on the impeachment charges (lacking a 2/3 Democrat Senate majority) does not justify the risk that impeachment by the House might cost them the margin of victory in 2008. They fear some voters may see impeachment as the kind of divisive and diversionary party politics that the Republicans displayed when they controlled Congress during the Clinton era. Meanwhile many voters are reinforced in their doubts whether the Congressional Democrats constitute an authentic opposition party. And we all have to take the chance that the incompetent Bush Administration will do no further irreversible damage to the security, economy and Constitution of the United States - such as by making an illegal attack on Iran - before adult supervision is restored to the executive branch.
But the frat-boy in chief has just been caught breaking one law, discussed below, that could soon have the most devastating consequences for the country, and therefore should cause Democrats to recalculate. After the crime of the century, Bush, acting like a small town sheriff took his posse out to capture the killers, and ended up in the wrong town. Made a real mess of that, too. His cowardly town council suggested politely where the killer gang had actually holed up, asked the sheriff to make a plan to go shut down their hideout and break up the gang. They did not ask him to actually do it. He was still too mired in his own incompetence and the mess he made of the other town. Just a plan is all the timid council wanted, so they would not be criticized at the next election in case something happened.
There is new evidence that something very bad might be about to happen, and it is not coming from Iran. Even after their own 2002 national security strategy, and The 9/11 Commission Report (Washington D.C.: GPO, 2004) recommended a plan for dealing with the threat from the Afghanistan/Pakistan frontier, the Decider and his uncle Dick never made that plan. So Congress passed laws requiring them to make a plan, and to submit their plan to Congress. Bush and Cheney made excuses that they needed to eavesdrop on phone calls, torture, and otherwise rip up the Constitution or they couldn’t take care of the killer gang – but made no mention of dealing with the killers’ known hideout in the remoter regions of a supposed ally in the "war on terror." They figured if al Qaeda came back to town, they could blame the failure on Congress for not going along with appointing them dictators. After the next terrorist catastrophe the cowering Democrats just might agree to take that last step toward scrapping democracy in America. Making a plan to actually go out and do the job they took an oath to do – defend the Constitution and faithfully carry out the duties of their executive office - would just get in their way. So they never did make the comprehensive plan to deal with the threat from the Pakistan frontier that they were required to do by law. Until now the timid Congress has been played like a fiddle.
Then reality got in the way. The Director of National Intelligence, in the 2008 Annual Threat Assessment, concluded that,
al Qaeda terrorists on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan now pose a preeminent threat to U.S. national security. … [A]l Qaeda is now using the Pakistani safe haven to put the last element necessary to launch another attack against America into place, … most likely … against political, economic, and infrastructure targets in America “designed to produce mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the population.”[1]Michael McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, who coordinates all U.S. intelligence, testified to Congress on February 27, 2008 that,
On March 30, C.I.A. director Gen. Michael V. Hayden chimed in on Meet the Press that the security situation along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border “presents clear and present danger to Afghanistan, to Pakistan and to the West in general, and to the United States in particular.”al Qaeda remains the preeminent terrorist threat to the United States at home and abroad. Despite our successes, the group has retained or regenerated key elements of its capability, including top leadership, operational mid-level lieutenants, and de facto safe haven in Pakistan's border area with Afghanistan.[2]
In light of these unaniumous, uncontested intelligence findings, the question about those missing plans to deal with a “likely” second attack on America originating from the Pakistan frontier gets attention. This is where the negligent Bush Afghanistan war strategy had chased the al Qaida and Taliban leadership. Congress’ Government Accountability Office followed up with its April 17 report on the status of Bush administration planning against a second attack from this same group, confirming that there is “[n]o comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals … as … mandated by congressional legislation.” The GAO adds its recommendation that the Administration comply with the law by developing such a plan “using all elements of national power to combat the terrorist threat and close the associated safe haven in Pakistan’s [frontier] region.” On May 6, GAO followed up with a report about the $10 billion given by Bush to his favorite dictator, Musharraf. The Report concludes that Pakistan’s use of the funds has gone to troops lacking in counterinsurgency capability and who failed to provide security in the frontier areas.[3]
The Democratic Congress is now on formal notice of what they already knew: there is no comprehensive and coordinated plan to deal with the threat coming from the Pakistan frontier due to Bush and Cheney’s violations of law. If the US had a plan it might be ready, for example, to jump in with economic, political, intelligence and even security support for the new Awami National Party (ANP) government of Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) after the secular ANP soundly defeated the pro-Taliban party, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) in the February 18, 2008 elections.
Meanwhile, on a parallel track, the Senate recently became aware of the consequences of the Bush/Cheney administration failure to form and competently implement a comprehensive plan next door in Afghanistan. A consensus has developed in the United Nations, NATO and various national security think tank reports that the effort next door in Afghanistan is also failing in part due to the lack of coordinated implementation of a coherent strategy. Senate Democrats, in their April 6, 2008 letter to the President, quotes the most prestigous of the U.S. think tank reports, the “prominent nonpartisan report chaired by Marine General (Ret.) James L. Jones and former Undersecretary of State Thomas R. Pickering” which recommends a “clear and consistent comprehensive strategy” for Afghanistan.[4] Formulating and applying comprehensive strategy is a function of leadership, which all know has been lacking in US Afghanistan policy.
The 46 Democratic Senators wrote in their letter to President Bush:
the negligent policies of the last half-decade have permitted al-Qaeda and the Taliban to regenerate, and to pose a greater threat to the national security of the United States than at any point since September 11, 2001. In order to protect our homeland from attacks which may well be developing in the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan at this very moment, we urge you to refocus the U.S. counter-terrorism strategy and our national security resources on this region and implement a comprehensive new strategy to keep America safe.The Senator-lawyers who signed the letter know the legal import of the term “negligent,” and it is justified. Given the stakes, the term “reckless” would also be justified. Competent leadership by the biggest player in Afghanistan could have produced a joined-up U.S. and international effort to rebuild the state as was expected and necessary to avoid the current warlord-ridden, corrupt, narco-state created by the Bush administration through President Karzai, who was handpicked for the task by the neo-con operative Zalmay Khalilzad, now Bush's ambassador to the UN. Failed governance has aggravated the Taliban insurgency, thereby increasing the cost of the counterinsurgency in both military spending and casualties. Meanwhile on the other side of the frontier, in Pakistan, the the same lack of leadership has failed get coordination within the U.S. government from the various angencies that need to contribute to a comprehensive approach to clear the frontier of terrorists. What is called a “whole-of-government” approach is well known to be the only effective way to address the complex problems of weak and failing states that sustain terrorism, drug trafficking, and other threats[5] which are now greater on both sides of the frontier than they were when George Bush took office.
The unsuccessful George W. Bush is now, at 71%, the most unpopular president since records have been kept. If the US had a parliamentary system he and his administration would be long gone, and the country would already have started addressing the many serious problems he leaves in his wake. But Bush’s failings go beyond unpopularity to at least the “misdemeanor” charges of criminal negligence and law breaking that is jeopardizing national security, and is also the test for impeachment. In his classic nineteenth-century constitutional text, Thomas M. Cooley of the Michigan Supreme Court wrote that impeachment is appropriate for "inexcusable neglects of duty, which are dangerous and criminal because of the immense interests involved and the greatness of the trust which has not been kept."
Impeachment is the American way to pass leadership when a President (and Vice President in this case) have worn out their welcome, and also broken the law or public trust. In this case the violations are flagrant. Their “negligent” failure of leadership in Afghanistan may be a matter for proof and judgment, and therefore the subject of hearings. With respect to Pakistan the evidence has been investigated and officially delivered by GAO: as GAO found in its report, the administration did not “report to Congress on its plans for assisting Pakistan in (1) combating terrorism and (2) closing terrorist safe havens, as required by both the 2004 and 2007 legislation.” Little further investigation is required to impeach on this count alone. The refusal to comply with such a significant legal requirement is both highly important and impeachable.
If al Qaida terrorists do succeed in striking the U.S. again as a result of these multiple failures by the Bush administration, will the American people pause to understand the cause and assess responsibility for the failures after the fact, or would they once again fall for tough, though misguided, talk from the executive – and follow them down yet another wrong road as they did into Iraq? Would there be sufficient public space for rational discussion to assess responsibility and adjudicate negligence, or would there be another wave of patriotism that paralyzes all thought? Unless Democrats know the answers to these questions, they can no longer afford to leave the national security leadership vacuum unaddressed. Both the Senators' accusation of the threat to national security posed by Bush’s negligence in Afghanistan and the GAO’s allegation of administration recidivism in failing to take the legally required steps to defend the country against its “preeminent threat” on the Pakistan frontier call for a remedy that only Congress can administer. That would not be just another letter to be ignored by Bush. The urgency of the danger requires a stiffer response to this ignorant and unreflective President known for not changing his mind no matter how reviled he may be by the American public.
Senator Obama already sent a letter on this subject to President Bush as early as July 12, 2007, at the time when the Senate was considering the law that required the Bush Administration's submission to Congress, within 90 days, of a comprehensive strategy to deal with the al Qaeda safe haven on the Pakistan frontier. He said, with the appropriate sense of urgency, nearly one year ago:
Given this recent threat assessment about al-Qaeda’s strength – and the warnings by Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff over the past few days – we cannot afford to wait 90 days for a strategy to be developed on this important issue. As a result, I call on the Administration to brief Congress on its strategy for dealing with a resurgent al-Qaeda as soon as possible, but certainly before Congress recesses at the beginning of August.[6]Bush ignored both Obama and the 90 day deadline.
The Threat Assessment, the GAO report, and the new expert consensus on Afghanistan should all cause the Democrats to now revise their political calculation about impeachment. If the al Qaeda attack does come, all expectations are that the consequences will considerably exceed the devastation of their last attack. The Democrats would be in a far better position if they were in the process of removing, or had already removed, Bush and Cheney for their failure to comply with the laws that Congress enacted to require plans to prevent such an attack. The responsibility for failure needs to be alleged in advance of the catastrophe, when there is still time to prevent it, not after the fact when it will look like typical partisan finger pointing on a subject too profound, and at a time too late, for finger pointing.
The only effective response to the Bush administration’s unlawful and negligent failure to take the necessary steps to defend the country is the immediate impeachment of the two executives responsible for failing to deal with the source of the threat. This is the wedge issue behind which lies a litany of impeachable offenses currently seeking a forum, including the fraudulent initiation of a war of aggression in violation of the UN Charter, condoning torture in violation of the War Crimes Act of 1996, engaging in domestic surveillance in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and other statutes, reckless failure to mobilize emergency resources in response to Katrina, and the many intentional failures "to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (Constitution, Art.II, Sec. 3) found in a long trail of presidential “signing statements.” There is also documented gross mismanagement of public funds in Iraq and in the Pentagon.
A new book by one of the country’s foremost prosecutors in recent times, Vincent Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (May 2008), claims that he could get an indictment and conviction of Bush for murder due to some of these acts. Another former prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega has authored and published a detailed indictment United States v. George W. Bush et al. Yet another former prosecutor, the former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, has fully briefed The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens (Nation Books, with Cynthia L. Cooper). If Congress is too busy to uphold the rule of law it should retain one or more of these prosecutors to obtain any further evidence for impeachment in Committee and argue the case for impeachment to the House
Some of the detailed grounds for indictment formulated by these experienced prosecutors relate to the wedge issue, the failure of Bush and Cheney to protect the national security of the United States through competent planning and execution. On this core question the lead witnesses will be from the military and security community. The military has provided the front-line victims of the Bush administration. Among the many such experts who have already written or spoken of the incompetence and failure of leadership of Bush and Cheney, the first witness should be Ricardo S. Sanchez, former commander in Iraq who in his new book Wiser in Battle (Harper Collins, 2008) accuses the Bush administration of “gross incompetence and dereliction of duty” resulting in the waste of "hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars" and of "American soldiers [who] were unnecessarily wounded, maimed, and killed."
The new book from leading national security expert Richard A. Clarke, Your Government Failed You: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disasters (Harper Collins, May 2008) describes how,
Meanwhile even former Bush chief propagandist Scott McClellan, in The Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception (May 2008), has performed his duty as a citizen by exposing the impeachable fraud in which he participated.Our government failed us before and after 9/11, and it continues to do so today.
… There is a pattern of incompetence and a lack of achievement running throughout the components of national security.
Impeachment is the American way to cast a “vote of no confidence” by way of political indictment. An overwhelming majority of Americans consistently report that they have no confidence in Bush and Cheney. Dispproval recently reached 71%. They are entitled to know why Congress will not act on that lack of confidence and initiate impeachment proceedings. In a nationwide FOX News Poll of registered voters in May 2006 48% of Democras thought it would be right to impeach President Bush, with 9% unsure. A national poll conducted by American Research in July 2007 showed that 45% of Americans favor impeachment of Bush and 54% favor impeachment of Cheney. A November 13, 2007 American Research Group national poll of registered voters reported that 50% of Democrats believe Bush has abused his powers as president and should be impeached and removed from office., and 63% think the same of Cheney.
It would not only be clever preemptive politics for Democrats to initiate impeachment proceedings immediately; it might also protect the nation’s security if the Senate could act quickly, and enough Republicans like Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) joined the effort. If Congress can finally take responsibility for discharging a floundering, unpopular and incompetent administration that lacks the confidence of the country, instead of timidly waiting for voters to do the job, next in line of succession to set things aright would be the highest ranking Democrat: Nancy Pelosi.
Article I, Section 3, paragraph 7 of the Constitution provides: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." Even if the conviction by a 2/3 vote of the Senate arrives only after the Democrats increase their majority in November, and thus too late to remove the culprits from office, this belated conviction would at least assure us that the group of Bush administration law-breaking incompetents will lose their privilege to hold public office ever again, while establishing some minimal benchmark of competence and legality in the future exercise of executive power. This would communicate that Americans have finally awakened to what the rest of the world has known for years, and constitute something of a public apology for allowing the criminality and negligence to go unchecked for so long, to the damage of so many.
A speech writer included in a recent George Bush speech the accurate observation that weak states are what most threatens US security. It has been obvious for some time that rebuilding those states is the US’s foremost security challenge. But the loss of credibility suffered by the US as a result of the Bush administration’s criminal record now makes any US contribution to statebuilding a far far more difficult task. As with virtually everything else George Bush has done in his two unfortunate terms, not only has he been incapable of bringing enough competence to bear to accomplish his announced faith-based goals, but the actions he has taken have been counterproductive as to the real world goals that must be but now will be much harder and more expensive to accomplish after he is gone. Every day he remains in office he aggravates these problems, while impeachment would reverse much of the damage by demonstrating that in the U.S. democracy does work, and the U.S. does have sufficient credibility to assist in building a legitimate state elsewhere.
On May 8 the person empowered to initiate impeachment proceedings, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr., issued yet another letter to President Bush. He quoted Senator Joe Biden, who lacks the power to initate impeachment, saying that "the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach".[7] The world can’t wait. The California Impeachment Slate is running candidates for impeachment against the timid congressional incumbents in more than 20 of the 53 statewide districts. Conyers and his Democratic colleagues need to stop writing letters to Bush, except the one that informs him and his vice president of the commencement of impeachment proceedings against both elected executives under Art.II, Sec.4 of the U.S. Constitution.
George Washington established the precedent that even the greatest of our presidents are subject to the rule of law and must operate within the Constitution. This most important of his legacies set a straight course for our country. How can Congress now permit the least, most incompetent, of our presidents to trample on the rule of law and our Constitution without any effort to return our course to the path set by Washington? A Democratic Congress is shaming this country's most precious tradition before the whole world by its cowardly refusal to initiate impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
Senator Obama has called on Democrats to end the “politics of fear.” The first step toward ending the Democrats' fear of fighting the damage done to the rule of law and national security of our country by the Bush-Cheney administration is to exercise its Constitutional power and obligation to initiate impeachment proceedings.
Let Rep. Conyers know your opinion:
(202) 225-3951
(202)-225-5126,
(202) 224-3121
(313) 961-5670
(734) 675-4084
[1] Quoted in, United States Government Accountability Office, Combating Terrorism: The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, GAO-08-622 (Washington, D.C.: GAO, 17 April 2008).
[2] Hearing Of The Senate Armed Services Committee Annual Threat Assessment, at 5.
[3] Preliminary Observations on the Use and Oversight of U.S. Coalition Support Funds Provided to Pakistan, GAO-08-735R (Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2008).
[4] Afghanistan Study Group, Report: Revitalizing Our Efforts Rethinking Our Strategies, Co-Chairs, General James L. Jones, USMC (Ret.) & Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, 2d ed. (Center for the Study of the Presidency January 30, 2008)
[5] Commission on Weak States and US National Security, On the Brink, Jeremy M. Weinstein, John Edward Porter, and Stuart E. Eizenstat, eds. (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution and the Center for Global Development 2004 )
[6] http://obama.senate.gov/press/070712-obama_calls_on_10/
[7] Letter from John Conyers, Jr to President George Bush, citing Adam Leach, "Biden: Impeachment if Bush Bombs Iran," Portsmouth Herald, Nov. 29, 2007.
The author Rob Hager is a lawyer who has worked in Afghanistan for the United Nations and other international organizations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)