While I now understand that, the idea of impeaching George W. Bush and Dick Cheney still didn't feel good, but it did seem thinkable. I still don't have a good feeling about impeachment. Not because I remain “traumatized” by the Clinton impeachment fiasco, but because that's how I think we should always feel about impeaching a sitting President or VP. Impeachment is the ultimate punishment, the constitutional equivalent of a firing squad. Therefore it should be approached accordingly — only when clearly justified, only as the last resort, and only with a sense of judicial solemnity, not partisan glee.

That's where I am now.

What happened to Bill Clinton had nothing to do with the legitimate use of congress' power to impeach. Lying about sex — even under oath — is no reason to unseat the President of a local SPCA, much less the President of the United States. That sorry event reflects, not a flaw in the power to impeach, but a flaw in humans who chose to soil and abuse that power. We must not now compound that mistake by letting it forever place impeachment emotionally and/or politically off limits. To do so would gut the already seriously eroded constitutional separation of powers.

Unlike Bill Clinton's stupid, immature, self-indulgent transgressions, Bush and Cheney have actually committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” — and plenty of each. If a court-like impeachment hearing ever began the process of stripping away the Orwellianisms from the Bush/Cheney list of activities over the last six years impeachment would be — if you'll excuse the expression — a slam dunk.

• What really is what the administration likes to call, “enhanced interrogation techniques?” It's torture.
• What really is wiretapping without a warrant? It's a crime.
• What are “Presidential signing statements,” that nix laws passed by congress and signed into law by the President? They are a violations of the US Constitution which the President swore to uphold.
• What are false statements made to mislead congress into approving war? They are lies — lies to congress — a high crime if ever there was one.
• What is “preemptive war?” A war against another sovereign nation that had not directly threatened the US? It's an international crime — just as President George H. Bush declared when Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait.
• What is it when five million White House documents (emails) “disappear” just as the administration faces it's first real congressional oversight hearings ever? It's called “contempt of Congress,” and when those missing documents involve an ongoing criminal probe it's called “obstruction of justice,” a felony.

Oh, I know, there's more — plenty more. Just pick the top one or two, start impeachment hearings where everyone involved is put under oath, and George and Dick are goners.

But the question remains, should we? Would impeaching Bush and Cheney be more disruptive than curative? After all, we have only two more years to endure them. So, should we? Should we impeach?

Up until this week I would have said that it was more trouble than it was worth. But, unless the administration begins treating congress with the constitution respect and deference the law requires, especially regarding the war in Iraq, I say yes, impeach.

And so far it does not appear either Bush or Cheney are about to stop acting like they are overseeing a monarchy. Yesterday when the president vetoed the war supplemental with conditions and time lines attached by congress, he said something that indicates he still does not get it.

 

TrackBack URI for this entry