The Showdown Is Here
By SusanUnPC on July 15, 2007 at 8:06 PM in Current Affairs, Democrats, Intelligence, Iraq, impeachment
By BooMan of BoomanTribune.com
Back in December when the administration blew off the Baker-Hamilton report, I wrote the following.
The Iraq Study Group put to a permanent end all the happy talk, spin, and talking points over Iraq. It’s a disaster. Even if Bush listened to the ISG’s recommendations it would still end in disaster. But, in that scenario, Bush would at least be able to buy some time. His refusal to take the gift is putting the Washington Establishment in a bind. The Brits are freaking out, the Republicans and Democrats are freaking out. They cannot and will not accept Bush’s stance. Bush does not even have much of a constituency to argue his case. Rick Santorum would be willing to do it, but he is leaving office.
Rumsfeld turned on the war and is gone. Jane Harman lost her seat on Intelligence. Lieberman was kicked out of the Democratic Party. The Republicans have very little to gain by sticking with the President.
If Bush doesn’t make a dramatic change of course, he will leave the GOP no choice but to accede to impeachment proceedings. The exact pretext for Bush and Cheney’s removal, and the make-up of the caretaker government, will have to be quietly worked out, but you can be sure that the long knives are out and many power players are going to be spending the holidays plotting out scenarios that will get us out of this nightmare…and fast.
We can talk all we want about where the public is, or how we’d do better to focus on other things, but that is utter, total, hogwash. Nothing can be done until Bush recognizes that Iraq is a total loss and begins to act rationally. If he won’t, and there are no signs that he will, then it won’t be the Dems that are the leading force behind impeachment…it will his own father’s people. It will be the big business Republicans. They don’t give a damn whether the rank and file bought all that propaganda about Islamofascism or not. They’ll send out the signal and the media will get on board.
All the Dems have to do is provide the direct constitutional crisis that leads to articles of impeachment and the rest will take care of itself.
You cannot ignore the wisemen of Washington on matters of urgent foreign policy.
Later in the month I wrote The Inexorable Logic of Impeachment wherein I explained why the Republican Establishment would eventually conclude that Bush and Cheney must be removed from office because of their position on Iraq. Looking back I was probably too optimistic about how the Republican Establishment would react. I really thought Lugar and Warner and Hagel would band together and take a hardline position much earlier in the process. Even now, they are not doing enough. Yet, all along, in all my impeachment articles, I always said that the Dems would have to provide a ‘direct constitutional crisis’. I never thought that Bush and Cheney could be removed for their past crimes, but only for refusing to cooperate with subpoenas that would expose those past crimes. And, for that strategy to be effective, the Dems had to plausibly ‘take impeachment off the table’ and take the abuse of the angry left.
Well…they’ve done it. We have reached the breaking point. The administration won’t turn over documents related to Pat Tillman, they won’t turn over RNC emails, they won’t let Harriet Miers testify before the House Judiciary Committee, they won’t let Karl Rove testify, and they severely limited what Sara Taylor was able to say in her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. All of this is based on dubious assertions of Executive Privilege which must not be acceded to.
The public, meanwhile, is thoroughly convinced that the Dems are not seeking impeachment and, looking at the polls, it seems to take a dim view of that position. But, even now, the time in not quite right for opening impeachment hearings.
First we must exhaust the possible remedies for compelling the information we seek. The first thing that will happen is that the full House Judiciary committee will vote to find Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress. Then the whole House will vote to find her in contempt of Congress. They may also find Karl Rove, Josh Bolten, Sara Taylor, and others in contempt of Congress, but let’s keep this simple for now.
Once Miers is found in contempt, the House has a decision to make. John Dean does a pretty good rundown on the options, risks, and likely outcomes. Basically, the House has three main options. Ordinarily, they would have the US Attorney for the District of Columbia impanel a grand jury. The grand jury would quickly indict Miers and charges would be brought. But the US Attorney works for Alberto Gonzales and his department has already advised that Miers does not have to comply with the subpoena. So, this is not an option that will provide relief.
A second option is to, as Dean says, ‘institute a civil legal action by seeking declaratory judgment from a federal court to compel enforcement of their subpoena.’ But this is also unlikely to bring relief. First, it would be a lengthy process that would let the administration run out the clock. Second, if the courts sided with the administration it would permanently weaken the legislative branch of government.
The third option is radical, but is completely justified under the circumstances. Dean:
Finally, if Miers is found in contempt, the House itself can take action against her at the bar of the House. (The Senate can similarly hold such proceedings.) Congress has the power to prosecute contumacious witnesses to require them to comply, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this power. For example, in 1987, in Young v. U.S., Justice Antonin Scalia recognized “the narrow principle of necessity” or “self-defense” of the Congress in protecting its institutional prerogatives. Scalia said “the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches must each possess those powers necessary to protect the functioning of its own processes, although those implicit powers may take a form that appears to be nonlegislative, nonexecutive, or nonjudicial, respectively.”
The technical term for this is Inherent Contempt. Congress hasn’t used this power since 1934 and it would be a spectacle. The Congress would have the sergeant-at-arms arrest Harriet Miers and then she would face a trial in the House. The Department of Justice would not be involved. Inherent Contempt can be invoked in either house of Congress, so the Senate could do the same thing to Sara Taylor if they so desired. In the 1934 case the Senate convicted the postmaster general to 10 days in prison. He appealed it all the way to the Supreme Court and lost.
This is the beginning point to impeaching the president. Bringing Inherent Contempt charges against Miers will provide the kind of exotic storyline that will crystallize the extreme crisis that we are in for the public.
Dean made a point about the administration’s strategy:
By not responding to the subpoena, the President and Ms. Miers all but invited the House Judiciary Committee and, in turn, the House of Representatives to vote to deem her in contempt of Congress. It was a defiant, in-your-face insult to Congress. No president would do this unless he was quite confident of the outcome. Clearly, Bush’s White House and Justice Department lawyers believe that the solidly conservative federal judiciary will grant them a favorable ruling, and that, in the process, they will greatly weaken congressional oversight powers, to the advantage of the White House.
In short, the Bush White House is not bluffing with this act of defiance. Rather, the White House truly wants to test, and attempt to expand, presidential power.
But they didn’t count on Inherent Contempt. They didn’t count on Congress standing up for themselves and using their own police and their own jail and their own court.
It is only when the battle becomes clearly a battle, not between parties, but between branches of government, that the Republicans will stand up and remove a president that they really have no use for. They won’t remove him for torture, or illegal spying, or kidnapping, or voter fraud, but they’ll consider it for usurping the powers of Congress. And if the president is going to stay the course in Iraq, they may well compel him to turn over the documents that will seal his fate.
A post by BooMan of BoomanTribune.com
BooMan posted this in the thread at his own blog:
How glad I am to see this here. Booman you did a great job, of explaining so very much. I am glad to see you cross posting here for your knowledge and input is appreciated.
Thanks again.
“All the Dems have to do is provide the direct constitutional crisis that leads to articles of impeachment…”
This puts me in mind of Bill Moyers’ program Friday night on the subject of impeachment. It is well worth the time to hear what his guests had to say. You can watch or read the transcript here: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html
His guests were 1) Bruce Fein, an expert on constitutional law, a former member of the very conservative AEI (of which several of the more notorious neocons are members) who wrote one of the articles of impeachment against Clinton, and 2) John Nichols, author of The Genius of Impeachment. Both made very strong cases for impeaching Bush and Cheney.
The reason the above quote put me in mind of this program is this part of Nichols’ argument, with which Fein appears to concur:
I have been unable to make a decision about the impeachment issue. The pros and cons are both clear to me, and I have been leaning toward hoping it can happen after they leave office, but I am not really satisfied with that. The situation seems far too urgent to to wait and allow them to continue to wreak their havoc. On the other hand…
Susan, you are more knowledgeable and sophisticated than I am when it comes to domestic American politics, and government and so on, and you have made what I think is a very valid case against impeachment. If you have enough time and interest to listen to the Moyers program or read the transcript, I would be very interested in hearing what you think of the arguments there, and whether it causes you to think any differently on the question.
For what it’s worth Shirin, to me it’s ALL about consequences. For 6 years the child king has had it all his way with no repercussions for his missteps, or misbehavior. The GOPer led Congress has been shmefully compliant, and the Dems have been too busy triangulating to live up to their responsibilities as the” loyal opposition”. It’s one thing to be pragmatic. It’s a horse of a different color to abbrogate your constitutional duties in the face of a despot.
Sen. Russ Feingold shows us the way a United States Senator SHOULD act.
If we try to anticipate the political future of an impeachment effort, ‘we’ retreat to a fearful and timid position against those who lust for power. Screw the clock! Let’s be courageous, have faith in our constitution , and stride towards the Constitutional cure for this despotic threat : impeachment.
“I don’t get the feeling that they intend to sit on their hands.”
I hope you are right.
[...] Man kan forledes til at tro, at Booman er vel optimistisk her. Men så på den anden side, måske ikke. Men det er en interessant vej frem til en rigsretssag, han præsenterer. [...]
Don’t forget about another disaffected quarter: the military. A lot of the brass turned against Bush and his neo con crowd and a bunch of them have spoken out in an unprecedented manner. MacArthur’s tiff with Truman is nothing compared to this. And, despite everything you hear about troop morale in the MSM, we in the antiwar movement hear everyday about Vietnam levels of antiwar sentiment in the military. We are very close to a situation where the grunts refuse to fight (one of the unmentioned causes for the US’s withdrawal from Vietnam.
How’s this for a scenario: a military coup backed by the liberals and the realists followed by a real clamp down on dissent. Just because elements of the ruling class are upset about Bush’s “incompetence” doesn’t mean they’re willing to give up the “great game” in the Mid East and South Asia. On the contrary, they see removing Bush and the neocons as the only way to salvage the mission.
>>> The Republicans have very little to gain by sticking with the President.
Perhaps little to gain, but it DOES hedge their bets. No matter how this admiinistration ends, there will be finger-pointing and fault-finding. Those who jump ship, even for the best of reasons, will share blame, justified or not, as Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al, claim that the country was, “..stabbed in the back…”
And that claim will play well with 25% of the electorate, particularly in the comb-over states.
>>> It will be the big business Republicans…They’ll send out the signal and the media will get on board.
Don’t look for this anytime soon with a record-high Dow and their position on capital gains taxation secured. This war, like all the others since 1814, is Good for Business…and money doesn’t care who bleeds.
Give us a 5-6,000 point “correction” in the Dow and the big money will fling Bush from the porch faster than a dead Easter chick.
Otherwise, he’s here to stay.
Its so strange Bush is willing to lose his base and put the repubs at risk for the next election to get a few more months out of this losing war. Its got to be about the OIL. The political mafia who put Bush and Cheny in offiice wont let the shurb and Darth Vader go untill they get that Iraq OIL.
Liberalb, oil is a big part of it - control of the oil supply and market, that is - but I think it is about a lot more than just oil. Control of oil is just the means to the real end, which is, as the neocons put it, unquestioned and unchallengeable world domination. And if American oil companies also get trillions and trillions in profits out of the deal, well, that’s a great side benefit.
I think it is also very personal with Bush. It is his project, and his big chance to make his mark on history. How can he back down on it now and voluntarily go down in history as a great big loser? I imagine the fact that the U.S. lost this thing a long time ago (in fact, they lost it the minute they began it) is not something he can face. As he has said defeat is not an option, but not because “they will follow us here”, but because then his legacy will be one of the most spectacular, and completely unnecessary, losses in U.S. history.
He is slipping down a rope into a black abyss, and he is not going to let go of that rope until his hands slip off the end and he hurtles downward. Would you let go of the rope? I don’t think I would.
Would I let go of the rope? Im really not sure, now that you ask. Good question. But as Booman put it, could daddy Bushs people be the ones who take JR out of the big house? Would daddy let his people impeach the monster and his treason-ist side kick? LOL. Its gonna be long hot summer for that bunch of creeps. And a long hot summer for our troops who have had to take orders from an M-Bell_sul.
Excellent observations avoe regarding bushco,oil, and legacy… also agree that I think we are being prepped to make it look like a thuglican save face win…
I am thinking, and on one of other threads, i think it might have been oracle, if not mistaken, talked about all the movement, coincidences, and all the jabber about troop redeployment, and then have somme other info filtering through, and possible reasons for some… I think with planes going to Iraq bases/ unmanned planes in air/ another carrier in region, maybe, just maybe we might be seeing the beginning of the end??? I also hear that troops are in motion in some other areas that can go either way. Don’t know if it is signicant, but with all the other things happening, one never knows.
I am sorry the above is so rambling, but I just keep thinking and can’t get it out of my head. Sometimes this happens before something else big happens. Sometimes it does not. but last time, I had this kind of feeling, it came for a day or two before the VA killings/massacre… even discussed it on another board before it happened (as to what kinds of things would take someone who wants to committ suicide vs. someone who will become a suicide bomber or the like)… absolutely freaked me out when it actually happened the next day. I pray if oracle has set me off, it had better be for the good this time… I don’t like seeing the dark side so much these days… getting tiring…
OK, before I get off my soap box/ sorry if I got so far OT, but I want to have one last word here re: Sirin’s comment
I will be most glad to cut the rope, even chew it with my 12 teeth that are left, if you can meke sure he keeps falling, and we will never have to see his schmirking face or azz again….
If we want to uphold the Constitution and guarantee that a future president doesn’t abuse it the way Bush and Cheney have, then we have no choice but to impeach them. They’ve gone too far. The legislative branch is co-equal. If the Bushies succeed then the People’s House will cease to be co-equal.
OT: Get this Bush’s 29%, Bush thinks you’re stupid!
From TPM: The president sat down on Friday with a small group of sympathetic conservative journalists — Bush is generally at his most comfortable around those who already convinced how right he is — and offered some insights into his perspective on Iraq.
Mark Kleiman translated the remarks for the rest of us.
It was an odd thing for Bush to concede, wasn’t it? Last fall, the White House was insisting, aggressively, that critics of the war were confused and misguided. To disapprove of the war, the president and his aides said, was to support a dangerous agenda that would necessarily undermine national security.
Except now the president is prepared to argue that he was with the unsatisfied majority. Here’s a follow-up: what does that say about Bush’s opinion of the one-third of Americans who bought into the White House line and told pollsters that they approved of how the war was going?
The issue surely is that impeachment of BOTH Cheney and Bush be aimed at curtailing their powers not allowing them to hand them on the next occupant of the WH ??
The Jusiciary Comm. seems to be the only route with any hope - the press will not help - they bellied up 6yrs ago - soem other connection needs to be made between Congress and the public - unless the latter also has a case of narcolepsy like the 4th estate - not hopeful at all that ANYONE feels the Constitution is more improtant than OIL!
Saw a recent interview with Michael Scheuer on an Australian program, Dateline.
Very disturbing.
Wonder if he’ll be able to say the same sorts of things on American TV (lacerating, detailed criticism of Bush’s conduct of his dual wars in Afghanistan and Iraq).
Wonder why Scheuer didn’t try to prevent the re-election of Bubble Boy.
Worth a look. Might be on the internets by now. So lucky Gore invented them, eh?
“If we want to uphold the Constitution and guarantee that a future president doesn’t abuse it the way Bush and Cheney have, then we have no choice but to impeach them.”
This was one of the primary points made on Bill Moyers’ excellent, excellent program Friday night. I have to say they sold me completely. My only real concern is whether or not they - meaning the rest of the government - can pull it off successfully, because as Susan has pointed out, failure could lead to a worse disaster than not trying at all.
For me it is not a matter of “saving this country and its constitution”. I simply do not, and never have thought in those terms (not saying it is wrong to think that way, just that that is not how I am or ever have been wired). For me it is about something much more universal and fundamental, and that is right vs wrong, abuse of power, and other things along those lines. They scofflaws, an outlaw rogue regime run rampant, and that cannot become the precedent for the future or there will be no reliable order at all.
Such a development as Booman envisions will have the consequence–salubrious or not, you’ll have to decide for your selves–of demonstrating once and for all that this is NOT a ‘nation of laws,’ as is so blithely (albeit falsely) asserted by the propagandists of the status quo, but a nation of mere, venal men (mostly); which intentional misapprehension has made intelligent, critical appraisal of the impingent circumstances, and the roles of various agents, far more difficult to explain.
Upholding the Constitution is part and parcel of right versus wrong.
I don’t remember reading in the Constitution the concept of “Executive Privilege” and the “Unitary Executive”? Bush does not have the right to flaunt the law; nor create one set of laws for his administration and another set of laws for everyone else, or to discrespect Congress. As Dean says, and as Moyers show highlighted, Congress must protect its Constitutional powers. If Congress doesn’t, then the People’s House will become irrelevant. The Bush administration will become a monarchy.
The “war for Oil: meme is not as far off as some believe, but for reasons not so apparent as some also believe. Exxon is showing record profits at the moment which is driving their stock prices (along with the rest of the industry)higher and higher, which also drives the market a bit. but a significant portion of the basis of the wealth of the company upon which that stock price rests is the amount of reserves they have to develop next year and the year following that. If they are losing reserves of oil to produce in the future, they will see a falling stock price which will result in the market also beginning it’s downward spiral because former niches of the market at the moment like the auto industry and housing industry are not able to hold up prices.
A big problem for American and British oil companies is the normal places they look to develop future discoveries to rebuild the reserves are rapidly diminishing,
Exxon is NOT finding as much new oil as they are pumping and like anybody who has ever drunk a beer eventually one glass goes empty and you need another, but for Exxon, BP, Shell Chevron ET AL, the American fields including Alaska are slowly drying up and very little is being found to replace it.
Places like Russia Saudi Arabia, Venezuela Iran refuse to allow the American and British companies in to develop the reserves under their soil, which means they find a new source to develop or go out of business. If american companies can’t find new reserves the Banking industry and markets like the NYMEX and British Oil exchanges will have little to sell.
Thus it isn’t the oil under the ground that is as important to many balance sheets as the idea that it is available for development by certain oil corporations and the banks and oil industries which support that development.
To sum it up at the moment we aren’t after the reserves as much as the right to develop the reserves which is the basis of the Iraqi Oil Law Bush ET AL tout all the time, because the right to develop the reserves can be added to the underlying reserves which prop up a hell of a lot of stock prices.
Clif,
[Fyi, they're reached the $500 billion mark, halfway to $1 trillion.]
Hope you’re not suggesting we impeach Bush & Cheney based on Exxon profits?
No I want Bush and Cheney impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors and crimes against Humanity.
This was written because the whole reason they went after Iraq was the development costs of the oil under Iraq is 5-10 dollars a barrel, and there is somewhere near 100 billion barrels there which could sell on the open market for $75 a barrel today, which is a very good profit which will build the bottom line stock price before it adds to the real balance sheet, the bankers also still for the most part think getting the oil is a good idea they just realize they backed the wrong morons to go get it, and now ant the oil law completed before they will allow the corporate lackeys they contribute to each election cycle to allow impeachment to go forward..
Why do you think the oil law is such an important bench mark?
Exactly how does giving foreign oil corporations the right to develop Iraqi oil reserves help stabilize Iraq?
If you can see the contradictions in what is said in Washington and what they are trying to be forced to be done in the Green Zone to the Iraqi people by the puppet government we installed and control for the most part, then you can see why Bush is so willing to break international law there and US law here, which is why a very large portion of the republican party wants to cut loose from Bush to get away from his dismal poll ratings, but need the backing of the corporate contributors in the 2008 election where they are running behind badly in quite a few cases, which means sticking with the original intentions of the invasion, but trying to dislodge the incompetent fooles they chose to run it.
that is tricky
Too many have sided with Bush during the last four years they can’t see how to distance from him but still guarantee they are for the corporationss and bankers getting what they want, which is why they say one thing but keep doing a different thing.
The MSM speech sound bites are for the sheeple they hope to fool, and the votes in chamber are for those they get money from for the next campaign.
“Upholding the Constitution is part and parcel of right versus wrong.”
I understand what you are saying, Leslie, and do not disagree that in this case it certainly is. The difference I see between the way I think if the current situation and the way I am hearing people talk about it is that I don’t think about it as being primarily about saving this or that country or upholding these or those ideals, or protecting this or that document. In my mind it is about something more universal than that and that the Constitution is, as you say, part and parcel of this particular case.
Not a big deal, just musing about different ways of conceptualizing it.
During Bill Moyers’ interview of John Nichols and Bruce Fein, Fein said that Congress’ ultimate power is the power of the purse. Impeachment isn’t Congress’s only power, especially when the odds Bush & Cheney could be removed from power are slim to none.
TalkLeft highlights:
TalkLeft writes: “To now argue that it is impeachment that is the bulwark against the abuse of Executive Power is to hand the Right a gift, for that is the argument they make. They argue that Congress and the Courts can only resort to the most dramatic of remedies against Presidential wartime power - the power of the purse, the power of impeachment. It is wrong to argue this line in order to foward the preferred course on impeachment.
Liberals and Democrats must resist this impulse for two reasons — (1) it is simply incorrect, and (2) it is extremely dangerous. In arguing in this fashion, the Liberal strips the Congress and the Supreme Court of the powers granted it to separate the immense powers of the federal government and allows for the abdication of the responsible role of an overseeing Legislature and a reviewing Court..
Thanks for the excellent post. Although I have a BA in history, I wasn’t aware of ‘Inherent Contempt’.
Dean has it right that the repugs are helping destroy this country:
they’ve taken an oath to uphold the President, rather than the Constitution
The US Constitution is important not because it’s the oldest such document still in effect anywhere in the world. Rather, as the theory goes, it is flexible and allows change without letting any one governmental branch supercede the other two. If the extremists in this WH have their way, then all those elementary school teachers who taught civics and government must have been wrong. America is no different from any tinhorn dictatorship in the world. Just a lot bigger and scarier.
Makes me wonder about Rove’s end-game.
Leslie, thanks for putting up that part of the Moyers program. I remember it.
Regarding the TalkLeft excerpt, maybe I am not putting things together, or missing something - or something. It left me asking “so then what is the answer?” IS there a way forward?
Believe TalkLeft is advocating Congress use its power of the purse rather than impeachment. Impeachment is the last resort. But Congress hasn’t exhausted other means to it yet to rein in Bush, and that’s the power of the purse. For example: Cut off funding for the war, cut off funding for the NSA domestic spy program, cut off funding to Cheney’s office, etc. The Constitution grants Congress a lot of power, and they haven’t begun to use it yet.
Thanks Leslie. That’s what I understood from the part of the Moyers program you reminded us of, but for some reason the TalkLeft excerpt confused me.
It makes sense to me. Cutting off funding is simpler and more straightforward, which is always the better course.
So, what is stopping them?
The House can do it, the Senate probably can’t without a handful of the GOP on board. They tried to defund Cheney’s office, and it didn’t pass in the Senate [I believe]. That’s basically what’s stopping them. The same thing that’s preventing impeachment.
They really need voters to call their representatives and demand Congress stop the Bushies. There has to be a groundswell of popular support for this, especially on the GOP “centrists” facing reelection. The GOP and Bushie plan is run out the clock—on Iraq, on everything.
We need to start YELLING.
Will George Bush still be able to Commute a sentence for anyone Congress finds guilty in their hearings?
You know he will damned well try it.
Can a decision from the bar of the House be over ruled via Commutation?*
Can prosecutors from the Executive branch be held in contempt by the same proceedings? Can this compel action?
The decision in Reagan’s days to ignore ‘duty’ does indeed signal a disturbing trend. How could such a term, and the decision to patently ignore a reference to “duty” appear consistently alongside a tribunal themed unitary interpretation that uses tribunals to nullify other procedure?
Up really is down, Republicans can feel obligated to ignore duty. Nothing new for Dubya.
“A Bulgarian doctor and five nurses, as well as a Palestinian doctor, are accused of infecting about 400 children with HIV, the virus which can lead to Aids, at a hospital in Benghazi.
The case was dismissed last year for lack of evidence, but the prosecution refiled charges.
A BBC correspondent says diplomats have suggested the case could be an attempt to divert attention from the conditions in Libya’s state-run hospitals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3079508.stm
There are also suggestions that Libya might be trying to pressure Bulgaria into forgiving its debts, estimated at $300m”
I mean, my impression is that the 5 nurses and 1 doctor were wrongfully convicted.
But why?
“Well, I think they were definitely wrongly convicted. I really don’t think they shot up 400 kids with HIV.
My understanding is that Libya wanted $5.5 billion to release them, which is almost exactly double what Libya got hit with for Pan Am 103. So yeah, it does seem like simple extortion to me. Which makes it all the stranger that BushCo renewed diplomatic ties and ended sanctions while this case was going on….
And what are the ramifications of not just one, but several nation states forgiving debts based on this case?
Beats me. This is a new angle, AFAIK, and I don’t know much about it. It certainly sets an interesting precedent, though…don’t know that I’d care to be a healthworker in a heavily debt-burdened country right now…”
–Phila, Part of the Problem
Two options, one to introduce precedent for going after others within the hemisphere who provide health care, make it too difficult for them to use influence. Venezuela and Cuba come to mind.
The other is for plausibility, finding ways to demonize Palestine in media as a side effect. Then having a shoe buyer make a solution out of a problem that was not really a true problem. Getting a waiver on the decision through some of her supposed diplomacy to reinforce where the business channels direct on normalization routes. A made for TV item.
The debt suspension, noted by countries in Southeast Europe, would be “temporary” thus opening avenues for scale currency manipulation.
Venture capitalist dreams coming true once again…
Ohhhhh, here’s why we supported Libya in this effort:
A possible rendition friend needs support!
This also would eventually push NGO out of relief and let privatized firms control that growing sector.
Dean is absolutely corrent with “In short, the Bush White House is not bluffing with this act of defiance.”
This is the biggest point that is the least understood by Congress. If there’s going to be a showdown, a big part of it will be like the AC/DC song that says “…who’s got the biggest, balls of them all”.
To prevail, Congress needs to pick the battles they can win against the president, and follow through, to show they’re not bluffing either. A good way to put teeth into it, would be to combine de-funding with a withdrawal of the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq. Neither one requires the approval of the president. The only battle is with themselves.
It’s quite possible that success in such actions would actually help most of them, by the time of the next election. It might help even more if they didn’t wait until the last minute.
test.
I lay awake in bed last night thinking about the idea of using the power of the purse against Bush instead of impeachment, and the more I think about it, the more I think it is a naïve and inappropriate response. To be sure, there are some things for which the power of the purse is an appropriate response: in particular, things that are legal but that the Congress does not want the president to do. However, it is just the wrong way to respond to criminal activity.
1. It is the wrong way to frame the problem. This is essentially what administration apologists did with Scooter Libby: they argued that to try Libby in court was to “criminalize politics.” In fact, it was Libby (and his bosses) who criminalized politics. A judicial response was appropriate and necessary.
2. Funding is too blunt a tool. It is blunt partly because the opportunity to use it comes only once a year. You know that the president would respond to threats to cut off funding by appealing to compromise (“let me break the law a little bit”, “legalize this illegal behavior for me”, etc). Even if the Congress refused to compromise, the president could well claim to stop his illegal behavior, while secretly continuing it.
It is also too blunt because Congress doesn’t fund all the details of executive branch activity. Take the attorney firings for example. Is Congress going to defund US Attorneys? Defund the whole DOJ? They would have to insert some language to the effect that no DOJ money could be used for unlawful or illegal activities. But, of course, that makes no sense. Abuse of power and obstruction of justice are already illegal and unlawful, and anyone who is willing to actually perform illegal activities isn’t going to scruple to follow prohibitions on using funds for illegal activities.
Iran-Contra provides a good example of where this leads. Congress wanted to stop Reagan from funding the Contras in Nicaragua. This funding was not illegal, btw, just something the Congress didn’t want US money used for. So they made funding the Contras illegal. Reagan, who was generally a more law-abiding president than Bush, simply went around it. The only thing that actually stopped the funding of the Contras was the threat to impeach. I would argue that Iran-Contra was a proper use of defunding, because the defunded activity wasn’t illegal. Then, as soon as the Congress brought up impeachment with the Reagan administration, Reagan backed down. Of course, Reagan then obstructed justice, as did Bush I, to prevent Congress from actually learning what was going on.
3. Much of the illegal activity is petty cash. It costs nothing to fire USAs. It costs nothing to commute Scooter Libby’s sentence. Even for things that cost a billion or more, the president has lots of slush money he can move around. The Pentagon’s black budget in FY07 was 30 billion dollars. Congress in general isn’t even allowed to see what that money is being spent on. Cutting off funding might stop the Iraq war, but isn’t going to stop any of that stuff.
4. Given the veil of secrecy around the government, Congress simply isn’t going to know whether the president is complying with funding restrictions or not. The illegal activity we’re seeing from the Bush administration is almost certainly just the tip of the iceberg. If, in the (possibly) rare case that we actually learn about illegal activity, Congress just cuts off funds, it would be dumb luck to if Congress would ever learn whether the president had stopped doing what they defunded. If the president decided to hide it, it could well go back in the submerged part of the iceberg of illegal activity, and Congress would never learn about it.
In a real democracy, a free press would tend to ferret out this stuff eventually, but our press corps will do no such thing, at least not for insiders like Bush and Cheney, and especially not for criminalized politics a la Scooter Libby. Richard Cohen, reputed to be a journalist, has actually written recently that sometimes things are better left in the dark. Is there any doubt that things like USA firings and NSA would be among the things that the public and Congress should be in the dark about?
5. This means that defunding requires accountability and meaningful oversight. You know that if the president was suspected of violating funding restrictions, he would do exactly what he has done when he was caught violating the law. He would send Gonzo out to lie to Congress. When caught in a lie, he’ll just plead ignorance and faulty memory. When Congress issues subpoenas, Bush would just invoke executive privilege and/or national security secrecy. We’re going through all of that now for something worse than moving slush money around to fund defunded activities. What earthly reason would we have for believing anything else would happen in response to defunding?
6. One of the chief purposes of punishing criminals is to deter future criminal activity, both by the one punished and by others who might consider committing crimes. We are where we are with Bush, because presidents regularly break the law, and there is rarely any consequence to the lawbreaking. If Bush isn’t held accountable for his crimes, the next criminal we elect will go even further.
7. Finally, the rule of law demands impeachment. If we are to have “a government of laws, not of men”, we must punish criminal behavior, or we do not have such a government. The president simply cannot stand above the law, if we are to remain a republic. Arguably, it is even more important to hold the president accountable to the law than it is an ordinary citizen, because the stakes are so much higher.
I apologize for such a long post, but this stuff is important, and I hate to see people trivializing serious criminal behavior (even torture!) by trying to make it a political issue. Yes it is political, but it also transcends politics.
With Bush we have a well-established pattern of behavior of abuse of power, obstruction of justice, unwillingness to submit to oversight, as well as numerous cases of flagrant violations of the law. We are so far past the point of defunding individual activities that the only thing Congress could do is to defund the entire executive branch. It would be better just to replace Bush & Cheney and let us have a functioning (and law-abiding) executive branch.
I also find it infuriating, but unsurprising, that Republicans might only now consider impeaching Bush. Trash the country? No problem. Trash the Constitution? No problem. But damage the Republican brand? For that, Bush must go.
Who is trivializing criminal behavior?
The Senate Democrats have a majority of one vote. The House has the votes to impeach and to defund the White House. But they’ll be overruled in the Senate. I think we’re all trying to figure out how to get around that.
Which Republicans are considering impeachment? That’s news to me Shargash. As far as I can tell, the Republicans are united in defending partisanship over the Constitution.
Also Shargash,
The reason to defund the Bushies versus going for impeachment has more to do with not abusing impeachment as it was against Clinton, thereby setting historical precedent. It’s not about a refusal to acknowledge the Bushies’ criminal behavior. It has to do with making good use of the Constitutional powers granted to Congress. TalkLeft explains it much better than I do. They make a very good argument here.
According to TalkLeft impeachment requires GOP cooperation, but the power of the purse wouldn’t. That’s why it’s a more attractive option, and it’s the principal check the Founders envisioned Congress to wield against an out-of-control Executive. Defunding would STOP Bush’s policies cold.
But read what TalkLeft says.
The Dem’s impeach Bush and/or Cheney?
Ha!
I think the American people have waited far too long and sold too much of their soul…the American experiment is over, someone go tell Franklin that we lost the Republic, and we are near the bottom of the hill to something else…what that is remains to be seen…but it won’t be pretty, thats for sure.
Shargash,
Looking this up in Wikipedia, cause I’m an impeach neophyte too. But here’s why impeachment would require GOP cooperation: The House must first pass “articles of impeachment” by a simple majority. The House has the votes to do that. Impeachment by the House is similar to an indictment in court.
Next the Senate tries the accused, and the VIce President would preside over the proceedings as President of the Senate. [Although if Cheney were being tried, Senator Byrd would probably preside as President pro tempore of the Senate.] But, big BUT here, the Senate could not convict nor remove Bush and Cheney from office without a two-thirds vote. There’s no way in hell we’re going to get that!
Defunding would only require a simple majority. Although any defunding bills would probably be vetoed by Bush. But the threat of defunding may be more effective than the threat of impeachment, since impeachment is least likely to happen.
You guys don’t get it.
In 2000, when Bush was (S)elected, oil was $20/bbl. After 9/11, it shot up to $40/bbl. After the Iraq invasion, it shot up to $75/bbl. (part of that was inflation of the greenback due to massive borrowing).
The goal of BushCo. is, and has been, oil-price manipulation. If there is X oil left in the ground, and the oil producers KNOW it, would you rather sell it at $20/bbl, or would you rather panic the speculators in the market up to $75/bbl? Of course, this is the price ExxonMobil (et al) have to PAY for their raw material, so maybe that’s not so good for them? Sure it is! Because it’s a great excuse for them to mark up their end-product even more! That’s why their profits are up so high. They created a pretext to gouge, and gouge they did!
The funny thing is; all the beer-swilling pickup-truck driving rednecks with their “Kick their ass, steal their gas” bumper stickers thought we were going into Iraq to steal their oil (wink wink, nudge nudge). BushCo was going into Iraq to make sure it stayed off the market. (Had we not invaded, you know, by now, sanctions would have been lifted).
o/t. this is juicy. jim webb and lindsey graham went at hammer and tong yesterday on meet the press.
former vietnam veteran and former chief of staff for a rep. cong. (c. 1985) and blogger doug thompson has some details and some thoughts.
imho graham is a punk. (iirc, think he’s like 50 yrs. old and never been married. rumors are he’s gay. don’t ask, don’t tell.) he also seems to have a medical condition. he has his nose so far up mccain’s butt.
link to thompson’s art.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2921
RAH RAH, Senator Reid is getting feisty on the Senate floor. He’s telling the Republicans that if they filibuster and stop a vote on the Reed-Levin Iraq amendment, that Reid’s going to keep the GOP there today, tomorrow, tomorrow all day and night debating Iraq.
HURRAH!
leslie, that is good news about harry reid. we shall see what, if anything comes of it. however, i am disgusted in the extreme that it has taken him 6 flipping long months to get to this point. people who in bartcop’s phrase “bring a knife to a gunfight” deserve to have the sh*t kicked out of them. unfortunately, the rest of us and the whole world suffers for their lack of intestinal fortitude.
and if they had balls abu alberto would be impeached/forced to resign before they go on recess c. 3 august.
but the dems — marginally better than the r’s — are bought and owned by the same mil. ind. complex and fortune 500 that owns the rethugs. as the saying goes, “who cares who wins the horse race, if you own all the ponies?”
this stuff about impeachment makes me wanna SCREAM! the motherf*ckers deserve to be impeached. they are evil toads who have done evil things. the constitution doesn’t have an opt out clause. it is long past time for ACCOUNTABILITY. and i don’t give a rat’s a** if the rethugs won’t vote for it. let the motherf*ckers have that around their neck like a MILLSTONE for as long as we have elections. so even if we “lose” (on the impeachment vote) we win (long term). people who think (said in whiny tone) “well we can’t do it, because we won’t win”…..this is exactly how losers think. what recovering alcholics refer to as “stinkin’ thinkin’ .” steve jarding who ran jim webb’s campaign (disclosure: jarding and i have worked together on a campaign in the early 90’s) said in an interview and was profiled in the sun. nytimes mag. c. late aug/early sept ‘02 that the populace thinks dems are “wimps.” deservedly so.
here is another reason we should impeach from paul craig roberts. former marine. former editor on the wall st. jrnl op-ed page, former asst. sec. of the treasury under reagan and someone who has been right on this war and bushie has an article on impeachment. pls. consider reading it.
it is my belief that there is a high chance that we are being set up for martial law. either a turrist attack here at home. nice of ‘em to leave the border with mexico wide open nearly 6 yrs. after 911. or a false flag attack in hte gulf. gulf of tonkin 2.0.
roberts is imho a nat’l treasure.
http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts07162007.html
Leslie,
Some replies:
1. I didn’t intend to offend anyone when I said “trivializing criminal behavior.” What I had in mind was a vision of someone shooting someone else dead with a gun, and the response being to cut off funding for bullets for the murderer. I didn’t mean to imply that you didn’t take Bush’s crimes seriously, just that I thought cutting off funding was inadequate.
2. My comment about Republicans in favor of impeachment is from the original Booman quote: “then it won’t be the Dems that are the leading force behind impeachment…it will his own father’s people.”
3. Impeachment requires only a simple majority in the House. Conviction requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate. I agree that, unless Pappy gets on board, a conviction is unlikely. However, impeachment is entirely possible.
On the other hand, even to pass defunding legislation would require 60 votes in the Senate to invoke cloture, and then 67 to override the inevitable veto. The House votes on impeachment, so only a simple majority is needed.
And what do you defund? There is not a single aspect of the executive branch that hasn’t been corrupted by Bush.
I am not opposed to defunding. I think it makes sense in many cases. I was disappointed to see defunding fail for both the Iraq war and the office of the VP.
What I don’t like is the idea of defunding, instead of impeachment. Defunding attempts aren’t going to influence Bush’s behavior in the least. He has too many tools at his disposal to counter defunding attempts, right up to and including defying the defunding. By the time that all gets sorted out, the next president will be in office, and there will be tremendous pressure to “put all that behind us”, especially since the next president (regardless of party) will probably be keen to consolidate the power grabbed by Bush.
Impeachment would have an immediate effect. Bush has no tools at his disposal to counter it, other than to pressure Republicans to vote to acquit. Bush has no option for defiance, unless he calls out the military to disband Congress.
But really my biggest objection is that impeachment is only “off the table” because so many people put it off the table. The more voices that call for impeachment, the more likely impeachment becomes, especially as the evidence for Bush crimes becomes more public.
Anyway, I apologize if my tone or anything I wrote offended you. That really was the farthest thing from my mind. As you can tell from the length of my post, I had a whole jumble of stuff I wanted to get out, and I guess I didn’t spend enough time making the post respectful enough of other’s opinions.
Don’t worry Shargash,
You didn’t offend me. Just wasn’t sure who you were referring to?
I’ve signed so many impeach Bush and Cheney petitions, I’ve lost count. Probably signed some of them multiple times. Wish Pelosi hadn’t said what she did either.
Defunding is a tool the Congress has. I want Congress to use all the tools available to stop this President and Vice President. Impeachment isn’t the only option.
in case nobody’s mentioned it yet, the vote that prevented defunding cheney’s office was cast by a thimble-witted, craven, kool-aid sucking DEMOCRAT, Nelson of Dumbfuckista…i mean Nebraska…15-14, in fuuking committee…chuy…
This is a great post, including the links, especially Dean’s at findlaw.
A couple of fine points to question:
“But they didn’t count on Inherent Contempt. They didn’t count on Congress standing up for themselves and using their own police and their own jail and their own court.”
It might be more realistic to assume that Fielding has in fact contemplated the possibility of Inherent Contempt. If so, then the question is, what has the White House also comtemplated as a back up plan?
“They won’t remove him for torture, or illegal spying, or kidnapping, or voter fraud, but they’ll consider it for usurping the powers of Congress.”
I think it’s important to clarify what usurping the powers of Congress means. Usurping the powers of a co-equal branch means usurping accountability. Once that’s done, the branches start to shift into a lopsided imbalance, which has the potential for snowballing. Ultimately, accountabililty is the only way to enforce morality and justice by legal means. If it’s true that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then it’s also true that un-accountable power corrupts un-accountably.
This is why the government needs to be held to standard of balanced accountability, something like a political version of rock paper scissors. If the paper is too much smaller than the rock, then morality and justice are just as small.
RE: shargash re: “What I don’t like is the idea of defunding, instead of impeachment.”
Consider that it doesn’t have to be either/or. Actions such as de-funding can leverage impeachment further ahead, as much as substitute, probably more so.
The thing about de-funding is that it only takes 51% nays to not fund something. The current funding for Iraq was only a few months worth. Two scenarios it would force would be 1.) Troop withdrawal 2.) Bait the president to try further illegal means to side-step de-funding, through black-money account shuffling for example.
In other words, a good way to get the president deeper into the impeachment hole is to hand him another shovel. I think it’s realistic to expect P and VP to continue as much or worse corruption to impeach on because it’s the nature of their track record; which amounts to having sold their souls to the devil. And you know, when you dance with the devil, you leave the dance with the one that brung ya.
Leslie,
I just read Big Tent Democrat’s thoughts on defunding vs. impeachment over at TalkLeft. I think he is making a category error by confusing legal but unpopular actions by Bush (such as the war in Iraq) with illegal activities (such as abuse of power).
Defunding the war in Iraq is certainly an appropriate response to Bush’s intransigence. However, I think BTD is wrong if he intends to say that the founders intended the power of the purse to be used against criminal activities such as abuse of power. Abuse of power isn’t a funded activity, so defunding has no effect on it.
I’ve read some of Madison on impeachment. I quoted him on it here a couple weeks ago, and I’ll repeat the quote here:
Emphasis mine.
Those aren’t the words of someone who thought the power of the purse was applicable. In the first place impeachment was designed to restrain a president from abuses of power and mal-administration such as removing good people (q.v. the fired USAs) from office.
This is setting the bar way, way, way below what Bush has already confessed to doing. Somewhere along the way, we lost the original intent of the founders vis-a-vis impeachment. As a result of that, impeachment has ceased to be a deterrent or restraint. It is high time we fixed that.
What criminal activity Shargash? Do you mean the NSA domestic spying program? That is absolutely funded by Congress.
ybnormal, I agree that it shouldn’t be either/or. Defunding, subpoenas, hearings, and impeachment should all be on the table. However, the president has pretty much stymied hearings and subpoenas.
And I think you’re wrong about the 51%. You need 60% to cut off debate in the Senate, and getting 60% in the Senate is immensely harder than 51% in the House. Now, it is true the Democrats don’t need Republican help to just refuse to pass any spending legislation at all. But I don’t think completely shutting down the government until Bush cries uncle is what anyone is talking about.
So I’m all for the full-court press. However, if Bush leaves office normally at the end of his term, avoiding all consequences of his imperial presidency, then I think you can kiss the republic good-bye.
1. Firing the US Attorneys.