Forget About Censure

I have to own up that I initially thought that Feingold's push for censure was merely an interesting piece of political theater --an impractical proposal, especially given Republican control of both houses of Congress. But an important play that set him apart from the field of '08 Democratic nomination contenders, nonetheless.

After last Thursday's revelation that Bush himself authorized Libby's leak of "classified" information to the Times, I think censure would be inadequate. It's time for the American public to push for impeachment.

Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth De la Vega cuts to the chase and makes the case in this excellent summary (you should read the whole thing) at TomDispatch:

Is a President, on the eve of his reelection campaign, legally entitled to ward off political embarrassment and conceal past failures in the exercise of his office by unilaterally and informally declassifying selected -- as well as false and misleading -- portions of a classified National Intelligence Estimate that he has previously refused to declassify, in order to cause such information to be secretly disclosed under false pretenses in the name of a "former Hill staffer" to a single reporter, intending that reporter to publish such false and misleading information in a prominent national newspaper?

The answer is obvious: No. Such a misuse of authority is the very essence of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States. It is also precisely the abuse of executive power that led to the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon.

Irrespective of motive, time and again, the Bush administration has demonstrated a disrespect for the Constitution and the rule of law.  Unfortunately, political reality dictates that Republicans help lead the effort. As Carl Bernstein reminded us almost two years ago in this USA Today editorial:

Thirty years ago, a Republican president, facing impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate, was forced to resign because of unprecedented crimes he and his aides committed against the Constitution and people of the United States. Ultimately, Richard Nixon left office voluntarily because courageous leaders of the Republican Party put principle above party and acted with heroism in defense of the Constitution and rule of law.

[...]

It was Barry Goldwater, the revered conservative, who convinced Nixon that he must resign or face certain conviction by the Senate — and perhaps jail. Goldwater delivered his message in person, at the White House, accompanied by Republican congressional leaders.

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee likewise put principle above party to cast votes for articles of impeachment. On the eve of his mission, Goldwater told his wife that it might cost him his Senate seat on Election Day. Instead, the courage of Republicans willing to dissociate their party from Nixon helped Ronald Reagan win the presidency six years later, unencumbered by Watergate.

But are there modern-day Goldwaters willing to pick up the impeachment banner? Bush's free-fall in the polls, coupled  with predictions about GOP losses in the mid-terms, may move some Republicans out of political expediency, if not principle.

Comments

[The Fat Lady Sings]

I agree, though I doubt either censure or impeachment will happen - even if Democrats win their majority back this November. For some reason, they don't want to engage Bush on the issues at hand. It truly puzzles me. The only explanation I can think of is to maintain the status quo; though that maintenance leaves them out in the cold, power-wise. ‘Is a puzzlement’.

As for Nixon - I think you can add in Nixon's willingness to preserve his party. He was a vicious, paranoid old coot; but he didn't speak to god, or consider himself to be the messiah. Bush would never step down - not even if every Republican or every American citizen demanded it forthwith. His hubris outstrips that of any politician I can call to mind (save that of Nero or Caligula). He will have to be actively impeached and convicted before he will go, and that will take time – time we don’t have. Considering his latest ‘strategy’ regarding Iran - I fear the amount of damage that man is capable of inflicting on both us and the rest of the world will be irreversible.

[slickdpdx]

I can understand why you might argue that disclosing Plame's identity or status was a bad thing. How you get from there to impeachment, beyond wishful thinking, is beyond me.

[NTodd]

I can understand why you might argue that disclosing Plame's identity or status was a bad thing. How you get from there to impeachment, beyond wishful thinking, is beyond me.

Uh, it violated the Rule of Law and compromised national security. That's not impeachable?

Regardless, I'm still for censure because Feingold's motion was about NSA wiretapping. Censure and impeachment are not mutually exclusive, and his approach is focused on merely one star in the constellation of Bushco corruption, illegal acts and basic imperial bullshit.

And really, nothing's going to happen realistically until 2007 because the "moderate" Republicans are fucking gutless, as are a number of Dems.

[Publicus]

The President should be impeached, but the major charges involve ongoing violation of the Constitution—illegal detentions, illegal spying, illegal torture, etc. He has also abused his war powers—and Congress has refused to take responsiblity for ITS war powers.

Under the Constitution, the president has very limited war powers; the bulk of the war powers resides in the Congress. Congress declares war, Congress provides (or withholds) funds for war, etc. The president carries out, as commander in chief, the policies set by the Congress.

Of course, this hasn't happened. The President seized powers he does not have, and the Congress failed to assert its powers and carry out its responsiblities.

So, we should start with the President, but the Congress needs to be dealt with, too.

[Alan McDonald]

As a strict constructionist, I believe that violation of the law, any law, is grounds for impeachment. I prefer to focus, as does Feingold, on the violation of FISA. The President's actions are illegal on their face, therefore an indictment (which is what articles of impeachment are) should be brought. By refusing to impeach Bush, the Republican controlled House of Representatives is aiding and abetting a felon.

[slickdpdx]

Assuiming there is criminal conduct, I'm not sure conduct that amounts to "looking the other way" constitutes "aiding and abetting."

[SalHepatica]

I think impeachment would be inadequate. It's time we tied Shrub to the back bumper of an Oldsmoblie and dragged him down Pennsylvania Avenue. (homage Hunter S. Thompson)