When once a republic is corrupted there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil – Thomas Jefferson on the necessity of the impeachment provisions to our Constitution


The debate on DU and elsewhere over whether or not Democrats should proceed with the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney shortly after taking over Congress primarily involves those who favor impeachment on one side, versus those who favor “investigations first” (followed by impeachment only if the evidence points that way) on the other side. But since the impeachment process necessarily entails investigations into the accusations that could lead to impeachment prior to impeachment itself, that dichotomy is a semantic illusion. Impeachment without investigations first is not possible. So let’s take “impeachment without investigations” off the table.

Thus, the real issue, for those of us who believe that George Bush and Dick Cheney need to be impeached, is not between those who favor impeachment first without investigations versus those who favor investigations first. The real issue for us is when and how much evidence should be required before the investigations into the many crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration are specifically referred to as being impeachment oriented (for example, by using the term “impeachment hearings”).

Those who emphasize that Congress should proceed with investigations for an unspecified amount of time prior to officially mentioning the “I” word or before putting it “back on the table” do so for one of two reasons, as far as a can tell: Either they believe that there is currently not enough evidence available for Congress to formally proceed with impeachment investigations, or they believe that not enough Americans are yet ready for impeachment investigations to make them politically feasible (i.e., without doing political damage to those who initiate or push for them). So, let’s consider each of those issues by looking at some recent history:


Consideration of the potential political consequences of proceeding with “impeachment” investigations or hearings

The attempted impeachment and resignation of Richard Nixon
In February of 1973 the U.S. Senate established a Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities to investigate events surrounding the break-in at the Watergate Hotel and other abuses of Presidential power by Richard Nixon. As a result of evidence obtained from those hearings, House Democrats initiated impeachment hearings against Nixon in October 1973. As impeachment hearings progressed and as more and more evidence of impeachable offenses accumulated, U.S. public opinion turned against Nixon, and eventually his own Republican Party turned against him, thus forcing him to resign in August 1974. In the 1974 mid-term elections Democrats gained 48 seats in the House and 5 seats in the Senate. In order to “heal our nation’s wounds”, our new President, Gerald Ford, appointed by Nixon as Vice President shortly prior to Nixon’s resignation, preemptively pardoned Nixon for any crimes he may have committed that were related to the impeachment charges against him. Many believe that that pardon was a major factor in Ford’s defeat in the 1976 Presidential election.

The non-impeachment of Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan’s Presidency was also marked by a scandal that suggested a high likelihood that he and his Vice President, George H. W. Bush, had committed impeachable offenses. The Iran-Contra scandal involved illegal selling of arms to Iran, with diversion of the funds from those arms to the Nicaraguan Contras, which had been expressly prohibited by Congress. Congressional investigations into the scandal resulted in the convictions of high level Reagan administration officials, but the investigations petered out before directly implicating the President and Vice President. No impeachment hearings were ever initiated. Perhaps Democrats were reluctant to take the political risk of trying to impeach a President who seemed highly popular at the time. Whatever the reason, their caution produced no political benefit. Vice President George H. W. Bush, who appeared to be enmeshed in the center of the scandal, escaped largely unscathed and was elected President in 1988 by a comfortable margin. And worse than that, his incompetent and worthless son later became President of the United States, with disastrous results for our country.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton
Some point to the impeachment of Bill Clinton, which was followed by disappointing results for Republicans in the 1998 mid-term elections (especially for Republicans intimately involved in the impeachment process) as evidence that our country is in no mood to countenance an attempted impeachment of a President. But the case for the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the case for the impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are as different as night and day. To say that we shouldn’t proceed with the latter because the former was a failure is like saying we should no longer prosecute murderers because of a failed attempt to prosecute an innocent man for murder. The one has nothing to do with the other. And most Americans are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to realize that. Bill Clinton had high approval ratings even during the height of the impeachment effort against him.

The political climate for impeachment in the United States today
A 2005 Zogby poll indicated that 53% of Americans agree that “If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment”. And that is at a point in time when there is little support from our Democratic leaders for impeachment. Just think what will happen to those numbers as impeachment hearings are held and more and more information becomes available to the American people.

Nancy Pelosi taking “impeachment off the table”
It is true, on the other hand, that Nancy Pelosi’s taking impeachment “off the table” could pose a big political barrier to attempts by Democrats to put it back on the table too soon. In response to a hopeful LTTE to The Nation that expressed elation at the possibility that Nancy Pelosi could become President if Bush and Cheney are both impeached, William Greider responded that that is exactly why she can’t advocate impeachment hearings. Ok, fine. But I see no reason why she can’t remove herself from the process by rightfully claiming a conflict of interest, while others pursue impeachment. Would Democrats be bitterly accused of partisanship or even treason for trying to impeach a President during “time of war”? You bet they would. But I think that we have gone way past the point where Democrats ought to refrain from taking actions that our country needs for fear that Republicans and our corporate media will castigate them for it.

Summary assessment of the current political climate for impeachment of a President and Vice President
I believe it’s fair to say that the history of the Nixon impeachment effort showed that the American public will enthusiastically support the impeachment of a President when the need for it is well grounded and documented; the history of the failure of Democrats to attempt the impeachment of Ronald Reagan shows that misguided caution is not without its own risks; and the history of the impeachment of Bill Clinton shows that impeachment can have adverse political effects for a Party that attempts it for purely partisan political motives.


Does enough evidence currently exist to proceed with investigations officially aimed at “impeachment”?

Numerous organizations and groups have drawn up articles of impeachment or a case for impeachment against George Bush. I’ll briefly discuss two here:

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) has drawn up four articles of impeachment, which they have detailed in their book, “Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush”. I’ll briefly quote from them here, followed by a brief assessment of the currently available evidence that supports them.

Article 1 – unauthorized spying on American citizens


Bush has actually publicly admitted to this crime and violation of our Constitution numerous times. But he claims a good reason for doing it. Bush’s excuse for this unlawful activity has been that he needs to bypass the request for a warrant in his efforts to spy on American citizens, in order that he can act quickly enough to catch terrorists. However, given that the current law allows the warrant to be requested retroactively, it is very difficult to understand how bypassing the warrant request will allow him to act any quicker – since nothing is quicker than retroactive. Therefore, the only plausible conclusion is that the purpose of much of his spying activities is so unrelated to a legitimate function of government that even the conservative FISA judges wouldn’t approve them.

Article 2 – unlawfully taking our nation to war against Iraq


There can be little or no question that the oft-repeated “misinformation” that the Bush administration fed Congress and the U.S. public on its reasons for the Iraq war constituted purposeful lying. His own intelligence network repeatedly told him the truth about Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and Bush repeatedly ignored those warnings. Consider the following, related to the oft-repeated Bush/Cheney claim that Iraq presented a nuclear threat to our country, based on Iraq’s alleged attempt to purchase yellow cake (natural uranium) from Africa and their possession of aluminum tubes alleged for use in the construction of a nuclear weapon:

3-5-02: Joe Wilson tells the CIA that there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to buy yellowcake from Niger.

9-7-02: Bush claims a new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report states Iraq is 6 months from developing a nuclear weapon – though no such report existed.

9-23-02: Institute for Science and International Security releases a report calling the aluminum tube intelligence ambiguous and warning that “U.S. nuclear experts who dissent from the Administration’s position are expected to remain silent…”

October 2002: National Intelligence Estimate report states “claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are highly dubious.”

1-24-03: IAEA to Washington Post: “It may be technically possible that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium, but you’d have to believe that Iraq…”

3-3-03: IAEA tells U.S. that the Niger uranium documents were forgeries.

3-7-03: IAEA reports “We have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.”

Yet despite all that evidence, and much more, that the alleged nuclear weapons threat was bogus, Bush stated in his 1-28-03 State of the Union speech that “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”… “Saddam has tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production….” And he also convinced Congress to approve his “Iraq War Resolution” by misleading them about Iraq’s nuclear and other equally bogus threats to our country, while withholding from them any information that would cast doubt on those threats.

The Downing Street Memos, which strongly suggest that George Bush intended to go to war against Iraq long before he publicly admitted it and that therefore “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”, have been described by some as a “smoking gun” for proving that Bush and Cheney lied about their motives for going to war. Well, that can be debated. But when added to all the other evidence, the probability that the Bush administration lied to Congress and the American people about the justification for the Iraq War appears to rise beyond a reasonable doubt.

I suppose that Bush and Cheney could argue that they were unaware of all the above noted official reports. But even if anyone were to buy that preposterous claim, the level of negligence required for a President to be unaware of those things while leading his country into a preemptive war would be so great as to clearly constitute grounds for impeachment and conviction by itself.

Article 3 – unlawful treatment of prisoners of war, in violation of established law


That these gross violations of international law, U.S. law, the U.S. Constitution, and common decency are widespread is abundantly documented by such groups as Amnesty International, the International Red Cross, and Human Rights Watch, among others. That they are sanctioned by George Bush and Dick Cheney is abundantly clear from their repeated public defenses of these actions, such as described in a February 2002 Bush administration memo stating that U.S. personnel are exempt from bans against torture.

Not only are these actions illegal and immoral, but they produce no value to our country, while destroying our international reputation. Out of the thousands of prisoners that we hold throughout the world for so-called terrorism related reasons, only 8% are members of al Qaeda, and only 10 (No, not 10%, just 10) had been charged with a crime after several years imprisonment.

Article 4 – Failure to execute the laws of the United States


As of July 2006, George Bush had signed over 800 “signing statement”, far more than all former U.S. Presidents combined. The American Bar Association has said that these signing statements undermine the separation of powers provided in the U.S. Constitution.


The other source that I’ll briefly mention here is Representative John Conyers’ report, “The Constitution in Crisis – The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Cover-ups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance”. This report, which is 345 pages long and contains 1401 references, does not actually contain articles of impeachment. However, it does describe in detail and thoroughly document numerous impeachable offenses. Several of them fall into categories described in Articles 1 through 3, above. And in addition, Conyers documents numerous instances of the Bush administration seeking retribution against its political enemies. I have summarized Conyers’ report in an earlier post, and here is how he summarized the report when it was released:



Thus, a substantial amount of publicly available solid evidence currently exists to support several different articles of impeachment. And there are also several other offenses, not discussed by the above noted sources, which probably constitute impeachable offenses of the Bush administration, including: the failure to take any action to provide emergency assistance to the victims of hurricane Katrina, even after Bush clearly knew that the levees had been breached; the billions of dollars worth of fraud perpetrated by the recipients of Bush administration no-bid contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq; giving corporations unprecedented privilege to write legislation in secret meetings with Bush administration officials; and, the utter failure of the Bush administration to even attempt to deal with global warming.


Reasons for openly proceeding with impeachment sooner than later

Given the near certainty, based on currently available evidence, that Bush and Cheney are guilty of impeachable offenses, and given that the current mood of our country would make their impeachment and conviction more than politically feasible, I see the following advantages of openly proceeding with impeachment, and labeling the relevant investigations as such, sooner rather than later:

Time
It seems to me that if investigations into the Bush/Cheney crimes are not openly labeled as such, the process of removing Bush and Cheney from office will be substantially delayed, since an extra formal step will thereby be added to the process.

I don’t believe that our country can afford that time. Every day that the Iraq War continues our country goes another $300 million in debt, more U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians are killed or their lives destroyed, and more anti-American terrorists are created. Worse still, George Bush wants to perpetrate a nuclear attack on Iran, which would be an unmitigated catastrophe of monumental proportions.

Likelihood of success
Many of us who are desperately eager to see George Bush and Dick Cheney impeached are very worried about talk by our Democratic leaders to the effect that impeachment is “off the table” or a waste of time. Specifically, we worry that the process will fizzle out for lack of political will, as it did with the investigations into the very serious scandals of the Reagan administration.

I believe that fear is justified. Stating publicly that Congress is “investigating” the Bush/Cheney administration, without publicly connecting those investigations to impeachment, gives the impression that abundant evidence of impeachable offenses is not currently available. Given that, what will happen if the “investigations” fail to uncover substantial additional evidence of impeachable offenses? I fear that in that circumstance the lack of additional evidence could be used as an excuse to curtail the whole process.

Education of the American public
Due largely to an incompetent and venal corporate national news media, the American public knows only a small fraction of what they need to know about the crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration. An informed public is essential to the continuation of democracy. I fear that investigations that are not labeled as pertaining to impeachment will fail to be adequately covered by our corporate news media, just as they have failed to cover so many other issues of vital importance to the American people, such as the lack of adequate justification for the Iraq War.


Final thought

As if in answer to Thomas Jefferson’s quote on the importance of impeachment with which I began this post, George Bush has frequently asserted, though not in these exact words, that “If the President does it, it’s not illegal”. I believe it’s fair to say that that attitude summarizes George Bush’s opinion of our Constitution. And therein lies an issue that is central to the question of impeachment.

As important as it is to remove from office the most dangerous Presidential administration that has ever disgraced our country, that is probably not the most important reason for proceeding with impeachment.

More important still is that to fail to do so would set a very dangerous precedent. The crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration are not simply crimes. Many of those crimes represent an attack upon and show utter contempt for our Constitution, and therefore strike that the very foundations of our country. Failure to hold the Bush administration fully accountable for those crimes by removing them from office would signal that such crimes are acceptable behavior for a President and Vice President of the United States. And that could very well lead to the permanent loss of democracy and the rule of law in the United States, regardless of who becomes our next President.