Recent
calls for George Bush's impeachment for his transgressions
against the Constitution, the rule of law, and
the citizens of the United States, have encountered
opposition even from those who, while in agreement
with the legal arguments, believe it's futile
to go down this path because of the enormous odds
against success. Not only are both Houses of Congress
controlled by Republicans, but many Democrats
are reluctant to challenge the president on war-related
issues while American troops are serving in harm's
way.
It's
worth reviewing briefly past presidential impeachments.
The only two presidents formally impeached and
tried by the Senate were Andrew Johnson and Bill
Clinton. Johnson assumed the presidency after
Lincoln's assassination and inherited a bitter
and divided country. The articles of impeachment
against Johnson were purely political, rooted
in the heated issues of racism, slavery and reconstruction
following the Civil War. Johnson was exonerated
by the Senate, although by a mere one vote.
The
impeachment of Clinton was no less politically
motivated. It centered about Clinton's sexual
escapade in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky,
a White House intern, an act which was extremely
irresponsible, but was never considered grounds
for impeachment itself. However, the civil lawsuit
against Clinton for sexual harassment by Paula
Jones opened up the opportunity for the Jones
lawyers to probe Clinton's sexual past, whereupon
he was obligated to testify under oath about his
affair with Lewinsky. It is here that the Republicans
in the House seized upon Clinton's evasive testimony
to charge that he lied under oath. It later surfaced
that the special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, acted
in unethical fashion by colluding with the Jones
lawyers to set Clinton up for what Starr hoped
would be damaging testimony and grounds for impeachment.
Starr and the Republicans won that round but the
Senate rejected the charges. Above all, the American
people saw through the political charade and continued
to support Clinton throughout the impeachment
and subsequent trial.
The
only impeachment that involved genuine "high crimes
and misdemeanors" was that of Richard Nixon. Nixon
was never formally impeached by the full House.
He resigned shortly after the Judiciary Committee
handed down articles of impeachment against him.
Although
Nixon's abuses of presidential power were egregious,
they involved purely domestic actions rooted in
an inconsequential -- not to mention botched --
break-in of the Democratic Headquarters to gain
"political intelligence." Nixon's crimes came
after the fact. There was never any evidence that
he approved, or even knew of, the break-in beforehand.
Furthermore, his crimes did not involve financial
gain on anyone's part, did not involve serious
economic consequences for the nation, did not
jeopardize national security, and above all, did
not put Americans in harm's way. Nevertheless,
there was little question that Nixon should be
impeached for his abuse of presidential power,
and it was almost certain that a bipartisan Senate
would have convicted him.
The
situation with George Bush and the war in Iraq
is different. The chaos, death and devastation
we witness there daily-- two and half years after
the invasion -- is the direct result of deceit
and fraud by the President of the United States.
No reasonable person can conclude otherwise. So
how can we argue that Bush is not deserving of
impeachment? The honest answer is we can't. But
the agony of impeachment is such that many will
find some form of rationalization and denial that
will allow them to look away. The ironic truth
is that it is easier to impeach a president when
there is little at stake for the country. George
Bush's crimes are so serious that the prospect
of impeachment frightens many, and justifiably
so.
I
see two major concerns in moving forward with
impeachment for Bush's most serious offenses,
those related to the Iraq war.
First,
there is the question of Bush's response to impeachment.
His recklessness and disdain for human life is
clearly evident. Would a weakened and cornered
George move to confront Iran and Syria with military
force, to gain an upper hand in his capacity as
commander in chief, the one area of presidential
responsibility that Congress is most loath to
challenge? The administration's Nuclear Posture
Review of 2001 states that nuclear forces are
to be part of new global strike capability to
deter and preempt security threats wherever they
may arise. The longstanding U.S. position to treat
nuclear weapons as a deterrent force has now given
way to a new reality, namely, that nuclear weapons
might be used in a first-strike against threatening
nations or organizations as part of the "war on
terror." Would a desperate George Bush be tempted
to play the nuclear card?
A
second concern is the effect on troop morale and
performance. It is one thing for Congress to debate
the merits of the war, but quite another to impeach
the president for his failings as commander in
chief while U.S. troops are engaged in combat
operations. At the uniformed military level, a
change of commanders can be effected immediately.
But not so with the president. Impeachment is
a slow process. While investigation and inquiry
could move forward (e.g., the Conyers House Resolution
635), formal impeachment would almost certainly
have to be preceded by an agreed on plan between
Congress and the executive branch for removal
of troops from Iraq. But in the end, only the
president can give this order, and Bush would
be expected to play his commander in chief role
to full advantage, as he's done all along since
9/11.
So
what are we to do? Allow George Bush to run roughshod
over the Constitution and the law and continue
abusing his office? No, something must be done
to reign in a rogue president and to avoid changing
the balance of power between the legislative and
executive branches that would have serious long
range consequences for the United States and the
world.
Here's
a thought. Congress could go with the Al Capone
strategy. Recall that after years of investigation
by the FBI, the infamous Chicago gangster was
finally charged with income tax evasion. Although
Capone was clearly responsible for countless gangland
murders, the FBI had no luck in finding anyone
willing to testify against him and so had to settle
for the lesser charge. Capone was found guilty
of tax evasion, and to everyone's astonishment,
the federal judge sentenced Capone to eleven years
in prison.
The
analogy to George Bush would be for Congress to
similarly limit its prosecutorial ambitions and
"go for the field goal" -- that is, focus on the
secret Bush administration domestic wiretapping
program carried out by the National Security Agency.
By not challenging the president directly as a
failed commander in chief, Congress would allow
Bush to maintain full responsibility for the Iraq
war, which would serve to lessen any temptations
Bush might have to play games with Iraq in order
to protect what he must see as his great "legacy"--and
legacy it will be, although not as Bush envisions.
As impeachment hearings on the domestic surveillance
issue advanced, pressure on Bush from Congress
and the public to end the U.S. occupation would
likely grow.
By
this scenario Bush would not face charges of criminal
fraud for his deceit in selling the Iraq war.
However, it seems increasingly likely that once
Bush becomes a private citizen he will face the
wrath of the International Criminal Court. According
to the Geneva Convention on warfare, the use of
fraud in establishing a pretext for invasion of
a sovereign nation constitutes war crimes if deaths
are involved. It's not hard to imagine Bush unable
to leave the U.S. fearing arrest by agents of
the ICC, forever barricaded behind razor wire
in his Crawford, Texas, ranch. In whatever manner
Bushworld is dismantled, most will see it as justice,
and all Americans can look forward to the integrity
of the United States restored to its former place
among nations.
-----
Gerald S. Rellick, Ph.D., worked in the defense
sector of the aerospace industry for 22 years.
He now teaches in the California Community College
system. He can be reached at grellick@hotmail.com.
Topplebush.com
Posted:
January 5,
2006
|