NBC Softball in Tehran

NBC News anchor Brian Williams interviewed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this past week on the lawn of his presidential residence in Tehran. The interview might have provided valuable information on Iran's intentions if only Williams would have asked some tough questions and the President would have answered them.

Although the well-coiffed news anchor had enough time to ask if Ahmadinejad expected to be re-elected next year (no comment) and if he was following the US presidential election (yes), he never got around to inquiring about the Iranian leader's threats to wipe-out Israel. For those who missed the broadcast (also available on msnbc.com), here is what was said and what should have been asked:

US-Iran Relations
Ahmadinejad said he welcomed better relations with the United States, and favored re-opening the US Embassy in Tehran. Williams was too polite to mention that the last time we had diplomats in Tehran they were taken hostage and abused for 444 days. (Some witnesses have identified Ahmadinejad as one of the captors.)

Enriching Uranium and Nuclear Power
The President re-iterated past claims that Iran was enriching uranium only for the purpose of generating electricity. He said Iran would negotiate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but would not be threatened or bullied by anyone.
He emphasized that nuclear power was the most safe and efficient source of energy available today, and urged all nations to invest in new nuclear plants. He added that if a thousand more nuclear power plants were in use right now, the price of oil would be much lower. (1)

Atomic Weapons
As he has before, Ahmadinejad denied that Iran has any intention of making atomic bombs, which he termed "20th century technology" and not useful in the 21st century. He noted that the "Zionist entity" (Israel) has hundreds of atomic bombs, but that they were useless in fighting Hezbollah forces in Lebanon; Soviet nuclear weapons did not stave-off collapse; American nuclear bombs were useless in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What Should Have Been Asked

1. Why does Iran refuse to have its nuclear facilities inspected by the UN? (2)

2 You have said that "the Iranian people will fight till the Zionist entity is entirely eliminated" and that Israel should be "wiped off the map." Do these statements mean that you intend to attack Israel? If so, how can Iran win without nuclear weapons?

3. Are you willing to meet with Israeli leaders, as Anwar Sadat did in 1977, to prevent war between your two countries?

There is no reason to believe that Ahmadinejad would have answered these questions any more cogently or truthfully than he answered the "softball" questions that Mr Williams lobbed to him. Yet, they should have been asked anyway, if only to show the American people and the rest of the world whether Ahmadinejad is really committed to peace, as he now says.

I believe that the cordial tone toward the US expressed by the President of Iran in this interview ( in contrast to his belligerent attitude in the past) can be attributed to pressure from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, who fears that Ahmadinejad's reckless rhetoric may have provoked an attack by the US or Israel. The goal is not only to prevent an attack by the US itself, but also to get the Americans to restrain Israel.

I understand that this interview was a ratings-coup for NBC News, which cannot afford to offend such a valuable news source by asking tough questions. The deferential attitude toward newsmakers by reporters is well established in Washington for exactly this reason. This is lamentable: if we ever needed Edward R Murrow, we need him now!

Heck, I would even settle for Dan Rather.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) If Ahmadinejad had seen the latest McCain TVads, he would know that real cause of high oil prices is Barack Obama. These ads are not now running in Tehran.

(2) As readers of the Glazerbeam know (but Williams might not), uranium need only be enriched to 20% U-235 for generation of electricity, but at least 80% U-235 for nuclear weapons (see our post of June 16, 2008 for details)

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.

Impeach Bush?