Impeach Bush?
"Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D, Ohio)...has brought repeated impeachment resolutions on the House floor against (President George W) Bush and Vice President Dick Chaney.....Kucinich and others regard as impeachable offenses: manipulating intelligence about Iraq,; misusing authority with regard to torture, detention and rendition;...."
Associated Press, July 26, 2008
"The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Section 4, Article II, Constitution of the United States
On July 25 the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Kucinich impeachment resolutions, but everyone involved knew that the Democratic leadership of the House had decided not to pursue impeachment. If we had a parliamentary system (such as that of Britain or Israel), Bush would have been removed from his leadership position shortly after the Democrats won control of both houses of Congress in 2006. But our Constitution clearly separates the Executive and Legislative branches of government, and establishes fixed four-year terms for the President and Vice President. Only through the impeachment process cited above can the Congress remove a President before the end of his term.
When the Constitution was adopted, the removal of the President would lead to drastic political change, since the Vice President at that time would be the candidate who finished second in the Electoral College in the last election. The incentive for the "out-party" to impeach the President was much greater then than now, when the Vice President is a close ally of the President. Significantly, the first President to be impeached was Andrew Johnson, who had inherited the presidency upon the death of Abraham Lincoln. Since there was no Vice President then, had Johnson been removed, the Speaker of the House ( a bitter political enemy of Johnson) would have become President. The 25th Amendment, adopted in 1967, provides for the President to fill a vacancy in the office of Vice President, subject to confirmation by Congress, so it is virtually impossible that this situation could recur in our time or in the future.
But Kucinich wants to impeach both Bush and Chaney, so that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become President for the balance of the current term (till January 20, 2009).
Even so, Rep. Pelosi is opposed to impeachment, which she (and the rest of the Democratic House leadership) considers politically unwise for the Democratic Party. She no doubt remembers that the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998 became a liability for the Republicans. Had Clinton left office early, the new President Al Gore would have probably been elected easily to a full term in 2000, so the GOP should be thankful the Senate rejected the charges.
But, aside from the political consequences, is Kucinich right? Have Bush and Chaney committed "high crimes or misdemeanors?"
Since the Senate makes the final decision on all impeachment cases, an impeachable offense is essentially what two-thirds of the Senate say it is. There is no judicial review or appeal. Yet is fitting that every Senator consider both historical precedent and the precedent that would be established by an impeachment conviction. The House Judiciary Committee has approved articles of impeachment against only three Presidents : Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. Of these, only Nixon resigned; the Senate failed to convict the other two.
Although the Bush administration has committed many acts in connection with the Iraq War that have been ruled illegal, all of them could be arguably justified by the necessity to win the war or protect America from terrorism. I do not agree with Rep. Kucinich that George W Bush deliberately lied to the Congress or the American people about Sadam Hussein's effort to acquire nuclear weapons. Both Israeli and British intelligence concluded that Sadam was determined to go nuclear, and (although some CIA analysts were unconvinced by the evidence) Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told the President the case was strong ( a "slam dunk!") If Bush told Congress only what he reasonably believed to be true, his effort to obtain congressional authorization to attack Iraq was not criminal, even if the intelligence later turned out to be wrong. This is a case where intentions do count.
Before the Iraq invasion, the Sadam regime had invaded two countries (Iran and Kuwait) and threatened two others (Israel and Saudi Arabia). In addition, Sadam financially supported terrorism against Israel, though not against the United States. His government had used poison gas against Kurdish civilians. The case for the US to forcibly depose Sadam was quite strong, even without the nuclear threat. Although the Iraq War was much longer and much more costly and painful than anyone had anticipated in 2003, the prospects for peace in the Middle East are better now because Sadam is dead and the new government does not pose a threat to any other country. (The threat from Iran is greater today, partially as a consequence of the US-led overthrow of the Sadam regime in Iraq, but that makes the Iraq gambit strategically questionable, not criminal.)
The only President ever removed from office for misconduct was Richard Nixon, who had used the CIA to obstruct the investigation of the Watergate burglary. Although Nixon and his staff repeatedly invoked "national security" as a cover for his actions, when the truth was ultimately revealed (with the aid of tape recordings he had ordered) the obstruction was found to be motivated by nothing beyond political advantage. When a group of important Republican senators told him that conviction and removal from office were certain, Nixon resigned before the House could vote on the impeachment articles.
The historical comparison is important because it illustrates proper use of the impeachment process. In sharp contrast, the disputes today over the Iraq War, wiretapping, and treatment of (alleged) enemy combatants are best left to the political process, especially since the presidential and congressional elections are only months away. By the end of January, Bush and Chaney will both be gone; if the American people conclude they were misled, the Republican Party will pay the price at the polls.
Associated Press, July 26, 2008
"The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Section 4, Article II, Constitution of the United States
On July 25 the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Kucinich impeachment resolutions, but everyone involved knew that the Democratic leadership of the House had decided not to pursue impeachment. If we had a parliamentary system (such as that of Britain or Israel), Bush would have been removed from his leadership position shortly after the Democrats won control of both houses of Congress in 2006. But our Constitution clearly separates the Executive and Legislative branches of government, and establishes fixed four-year terms for the President and Vice President. Only through the impeachment process cited above can the Congress remove a President before the end of his term.
When the Constitution was adopted, the removal of the President would lead to drastic political change, since the Vice President at that time would be the candidate who finished second in the Electoral College in the last election. The incentive for the "out-party" to impeach the President was much greater then than now, when the Vice President is a close ally of the President. Significantly, the first President to be impeached was Andrew Johnson, who had inherited the presidency upon the death of Abraham Lincoln. Since there was no Vice President then, had Johnson been removed, the Speaker of the House ( a bitter political enemy of Johnson) would have become President. The 25th Amendment, adopted in 1967, provides for the President to fill a vacancy in the office of Vice President, subject to confirmation by Congress, so it is virtually impossible that this situation could recur in our time or in the future.
But Kucinich wants to impeach both Bush and Chaney, so that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would become President for the balance of the current term (till January 20, 2009).
Even so, Rep. Pelosi is opposed to impeachment, which she (and the rest of the Democratic House leadership) considers politically unwise for the Democratic Party. She no doubt remembers that the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998 became a liability for the Republicans. Had Clinton left office early, the new President Al Gore would have probably been elected easily to a full term in 2000, so the GOP should be thankful the Senate rejected the charges.
But, aside from the political consequences, is Kucinich right? Have Bush and Chaney committed "high crimes or misdemeanors?"
Since the Senate makes the final decision on all impeachment cases, an impeachable offense is essentially what two-thirds of the Senate say it is. There is no judicial review or appeal. Yet is fitting that every Senator consider both historical precedent and the precedent that would be established by an impeachment conviction. The House Judiciary Committee has approved articles of impeachment against only three Presidents : Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. Of these, only Nixon resigned; the Senate failed to convict the other two.
Although the Bush administration has committed many acts in connection with the Iraq War that have been ruled illegal, all of them could be arguably justified by the necessity to win the war or protect America from terrorism. I do not agree with Rep. Kucinich that George W Bush deliberately lied to the Congress or the American people about Sadam Hussein's effort to acquire nuclear weapons. Both Israeli and British intelligence concluded that Sadam was determined to go nuclear, and (although some CIA analysts were unconvinced by the evidence) Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told the President the case was strong ( a "slam dunk!") If Bush told Congress only what he reasonably believed to be true, his effort to obtain congressional authorization to attack Iraq was not criminal, even if the intelligence later turned out to be wrong. This is a case where intentions do count.
Before the Iraq invasion, the Sadam regime had invaded two countries (Iran and Kuwait) and threatened two others (Israel and Saudi Arabia). In addition, Sadam financially supported terrorism against Israel, though not against the United States. His government had used poison gas against Kurdish civilians. The case for the US to forcibly depose Sadam was quite strong, even without the nuclear threat. Although the Iraq War was much longer and much more costly and painful than anyone had anticipated in 2003, the prospects for peace in the Middle East are better now because Sadam is dead and the new government does not pose a threat to any other country. (The threat from Iran is greater today, partially as a consequence of the US-led overthrow of the Sadam regime in Iraq, but that makes the Iraq gambit strategically questionable, not criminal.)
The only President ever removed from office for misconduct was Richard Nixon, who had used the CIA to obstruct the investigation of the Watergate burglary. Although Nixon and his staff repeatedly invoked "national security" as a cover for his actions, when the truth was ultimately revealed (with the aid of tape recordings he had ordered) the obstruction was found to be motivated by nothing beyond political advantage. When a group of important Republican senators told him that conviction and removal from office were certain, Nixon resigned before the House could vote on the impeachment articles.
The historical comparison is important because it illustrates proper use of the impeachment process. In sharp contrast, the disputes today over the Iraq War, wiretapping, and treatment of (alleged) enemy combatants are best left to the political process, especially since the presidential and congressional elections are only months away. By the end of January, Bush and Chaney will both be gone; if the American people conclude they were misled, the Republican Party will pay the price at the polls.
Labels: Bush, impeachment, Kucinich
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 3:02 PM
2 Comments:
Very good, thank you.
But if you are correct than shouldn't Kucinich and his Democratic suppporters be censured for wasting the time and money of the Congress on this issue? If you are right then Kucinich is wrong and you should be supporting stopping this idiocy immediately and by all means of the rest of Congress and the American people.
Here we are faced with a banking and motgage crises, energy crisis, and anti-terrorism crisis; and all that Kucinich and many Democrats are concerned about is this idiocy.
Shouldn't you then be calling for immediate censure of Kucinich and his supporters on this issue?
Here is proof and it was written 6 years ago.
Ivan
From the Same School
Brian Williams is more liberal anchoring from NBC.
By Brent H. Baker
Many see the "big three" nightly news shows as dinosaurs in the face of vibrant cable alternatives. But who anchors them remains relevant for two reasons: First, the anchor is the face of the network during special coverage when millions tune in, such as on Election Night or a Sept. 11th. Second, while those with a great interest in the news watch cable, the broadcast networks reach a far larger audience of less politically aware viewers who are more susceptible to any bias. Though the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts continue to lose viewers, each still individually attracts an audience about three times greater than the primetime audience of CNN, FNC, and MSNBC combined.
Any hope, however, that the next generation of network-news anchors might nudge the evening newscasts away from the liberalism which is driving viewers to cable was dashed, at least by NBC, when the network announced that Brian Williams will slide into the NBC Nightly News anchor seat after the 2004 election.
Williams, now anchor of a nightly newscast shown on both MSNBC and CNBC, and the primary NBC Nightly News fill-in for Tom Brokaw, is a case study in Bernard Goldberg's observation that it is the "inability to see liberal views as liberal that is at the heart" of liberal media bias.
Indeed, to Williams neither Al Gore nor Bill Bradley were liberal presidential candidates. On his MSNBC show in July of 1999 he lamented how "there is no true liberal to be found in this race. There's no Harkin, there's no Kennedy, there are just two centrists."
Bill Bradley a "centrist?" Ted Kennedy has earned an 88 percent lifetime rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action (ADA). The ADA's lifetime rating for Bradley: A barely differentiable 85 percent.
While he doesn't see any liberals in America, he has no problem tagging conservatives as "far right" extremists. In February of 2000 he pleaded with guest Laura Ingraham: "What do you do to convince, if you are John McCain, to convince the far right, 'No, really, you have to listen to my point of electability'?" Opening the December 22, 2000 NBC Nightly News, Williams asserted that in picking John Ashcroft for attorney general, President Bush "calms the far right politically."
Being pro-life made Bob Casey, the former governor of Pennsylvania, an "ultraconservative" to Williams. When Casey passed away in May 2000, Williams warned that Casey was "a Democrat, but a devout Catholic and thus was ultraconservative on the topic of abortion."
Standing up for conservative principles seems to really annoy Williams. Following a January 2000 GOP debate, Williams denigrated the positions taken by the six candidates, bemoaning how "it's red meat for conservatives, the positions rather strident tonight: anti-gay, pro-Jesus, and anti-abortion and no gray matter in between."
Back in 1996 Williams followed the Clintonista script as he scolded Bob Dole for daring to mention how the Clinton White House got caught with hundreds of FBI background files. Williams set up a Nightly News story: "The politics of Campaign '96 are getting very ugly, very early. Today Bob Dole accused the White House of using the FBI to wage war against its political enemies, and if that sounds like another political scandal, that's the point."
Matching the environmental lobby's spin, Williams regularly condemns SUVs. He demanded in January this year: "With the U.S. locked in dependence on foreign oil, is it downright unpatriotic to drive an SUV?" In early March he rued: "Gas-guzzling SUVs and light trucks were big winners on Capitol Hill today, but there's concern tonight the environment could be the big loser."
A classic example of the contrasting way Williams treats liberals versus conservatives was illustrated by how he approached interviews with Janet Reno versus Ken Starr. He delivered a love-fest with Reno in May of 2001. Asking her "what do your days consist of these days" elicited the response that she likes to kayak and "walk in the grass in my bare feet." Now there's an image.
Williams empathized with how Reno was the target of criticism: "Did any of it make you want to scream?" When she insisted that if Orrin Hatch walked into the room she'd give him a "big hug," Williams was astonished: "But he said some terrible things about you on those Sunday talk shows." Williams even wondered: "How would you like to leave this Earth?"
But quizzing Starr 18 months earlier on MSNBC, in November 1999, Williams had demanded that Starr identify "a moment of zealotry, two moments of zealotry" in his "hunt" for the president. Williams also wondered if Starr realized that his case was perceived as being "about a middle aged man telling kind of run-of-the-mill lies to protect a non-intercourse sexual affair"?
On the upside, Williams is at least sometimes cognizant of the mainstream media's slant. On September 21, 2000 Williams opened his MSNBC program by conceding: "A series of small mistakes have taken their toll on the Gore campaign. There was the campaign event where Gore forgot the word mammogram, called it a sonogram, before asking some nurses in the audience for help. No big deal, mind you, but had that happened to Bush the news media would have used it to further the theme that the Texas governor has a troubled relationship with the English language."
Now, if only he would do more to correct the bias than to perpetuate it.
— Brent Baker is vice president of the Media Research Center.
Post a Comment
<< Home