There's a movie moment for nearly every occasion in life. Take this one from Harold Meyerson -- arguing against impeachment (of Bush and Cheney, anyway) in a cover story in The American Prospect:
You may recall the scene in Clint Eastwood's 1992 Western "Unforgiven" where Eastwood's character levels his gun at Gene Hackman's malevolent sheriff, whom he is about to dispatch to hell's lower depths. "I don't deserve this," Hackman protests. "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it," Eastwood replies, and pulls the trigger.
And that -- a touch overstated, I'll admit -- is pretty much my position on impeachment. Does George W. Bush deserve to be impeached? Absolutely. Problem is, that doesn't resolve the question of whether trying to impeach Bush (and, necessarily, Dick Cheney, too) is a good idea.... "Deserve" does have something to do with it, but not enough to carry the day. At least, not this day. [...]
The constitution allows for the impeachment of a president, vice president, et al by means of a simple majority, that is, one vote. It was intended as an easy to use check and balance that was never used in the manner intended. Conviction, carried out by trial in the Senate requires a super majority, or in actual numbers, 67 members of the Senate. The point was to make it easy to Impeach (in an evenly divided House one need not even be the majority party to successfully push through an impeachment) but difficult to convict. The impeachment brings the offending parties actions to light, dishonors him and hopefully resolves the situation without a conviction. So far we have had two impeachments and no convictions. And that's pretty much what was intended, although both impeachments were dubious at best.
There would have been a third impeachment and conviction had Nixon not resigned and the difference between then and now are at the crux of the problem. In July of 1974 the Congress got to hear what became known as the "Smoking Gun" tape, recorded on June 23, 1972, a mere six days after the original break-in. That's the conversation where Nixon clearly was attempting to obstruct justice by strong-arming the CIA into getting the FBI to halt the investigation. He was now a part of a criminal conspiracy.
After the "Smoking Gun" tape was heard every Republican on the House Impeachment Committee (Every Single One) who had previously voted against impeachment announced that they would now vote for it.
Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment. His stooges gave him their info on the Senate before his resignation: Only six Senators could be counted on to vote against conviction! So he resigned. Because the constitution stipulates something else: A presidential pardon covers every criminal offence, except convictions derived from impeachment. Ford would not have been able to pardon Nixon had he been convicted in the Senate.
The difference is stunning and that difference is obviously the Congress. In 1974 the democrats weren't afraid to fight for impeachment and the republicans, when confronted with evidence, stood right along with them. Compared to today's congress, the 1974 Congress looks like the bravest men and women of honor we have ever had.
The ACLU is currently running ads portraying members of Congress as sheep. It's not a stretch. Our checks and balances aren't broken - they're just not being used.
Impeaching Cheney is the right idea. After hearing his comments in Red Square in 1989 ("All I can think of is this is ground zero"), his wife's insane provacations of war with China in the commssion on homeland security that was related by Gary Hart, it is clear that Cheney sees historical progress as an endless series of wars. It is also clear from the early summer stories from the Washington Post that he is running things, not Bush.
But I feel absolutely powerless. I can do nothing. I vote and have to rely on those men and women to operate under the system of checks and balances so carefully worked out in the late 1780's. And they have let me down. What's next? The states have the ability to call for a constitutional convention but this late in the game I don't think it would happen nor would anyone know what to do.
I'm out of ideas. We just keep talking and talking and talking and no one in power does a damn thing. And what can we do? Protest? Done that. Till I'm blue in the f**king face. Signed petitions? Done that. 'Till my f**king hand fell limp. Give money to organizations fighting for the Bill of Rights? Done that. 'Till my f**king wallet was empty. Vote? Did that. What a f**king joke!
I give up. Anyone comes up with something we can actually do, let me know. I'll do it, 'till my f**king heart breaks.
Jonathan,
Do you know how long it takes for a hairstyle to catch on in Montana, about ten years. What you've been doing is affecting each person you run into, one at a time, and even if it doesn't change their minds immediately, they notice, they consider, and the next time they see they consider a few seconds longer. If it takes ten years for a hairstyle, it's going to take a couple for political ideas to set in. Sometimes I've found after a lot of f**king work, the hardest part of the work is to wait and let the initial work settle in. All you may have to do is wait until the next election, not far now, and hope that those people have considered enough to make a better decision this time around.
Let's not forget that there are still millions of people who think Bush is doing a bang-up job. Did Nixon have that kind of support? We look at 25% approval and are satisfied; most of America thinks the man is a tool. But that's still tens of millions who don't! Tens of millions of people believe Bush was GOOD for America and the world!
Sometimes people depress me. What more is it gonna take? What else can Bush possibly do to prove to those 25 million that he's totally unfit as leader of the free world?
I'd like to believe that Phillip is right, I really would, but evidence is strong that Jonathan's pessimism is well-founded. The system of checks and balances isn't working for a variety of reasons. Foremost, perhaps, is that congress isn't working for us anymore. They're working for Boeing Aircraft, Pfizer and Lockheed-Martin.
Perhaps worst of all, they're working for themselves, to preserve their places in Washington. Nothing has saddened me more than to see the spineless behavior of the opposition party, clearly more interested in staying in office than doing the right thing.
Don't get me wrong, I think the state of our political machinery blows, and perhaps I showed a bit of my youthful naivete in my last post. In the end I think it would be best to let them die out with a whimper than to go out as a martyr for their beliefs, which if that were to happen would cause quite a bang among their followers. And as we know, the list unfortunately still exists. This isn't like Watergate, where we have a clear cut criminal offense, as the original post seems to go into. Many would think they've done nothing wrong.
"spineless behavior of the opposition party"
You're right, Rick -- they can scarcely be called an "opposition" in that sense. They share responsibility for this mess. The only thing that gives me hope is that they're the only ones even expressing interest in recognizing the nature of the mess, and rescuing and rehabilitating America's reputation.
Phillip: You point out something worth repeating: There will always be those who are so deep into denial that they'll never see what members of the Bush administration have done wrong. Including many members of the Bush administration. In that sense, they're JUST like Nixon, who memorably said in his post-resignation interviews with David Frost: "Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal." That is exactly what Bush, Cheney and Gonzales are saying about themselves.
That's why I think we need an impeachment trial. The Constitution does not give the executive branch the power to make these decisions about what is legal or not illegal. That needs to be determined in the way the Constitution provides for resolving these conflicts. All the evidence needs to come out, not improperly withheld under "executive privilege" (which in any case only belongs to the president). Gonzales is guilty of withholding evidence under "executive privilege," even though he says the president was not involved. He can't have it both ways. Cheney says he's not a member of the executive branch (!) because as President Pro-Tem of the Senate, he's a member of Congress. But he's not subject to the rules of Congress because he's Vice President. Therefore, the Vice President is the only government official who has no oversight and unchecked power to do whatever he wants. Right. I think you'll find that in the Constitution under Catch-22.
I withheld posting earlier until I could get my blood to stop boiling. Everyone sounds like they’re at the end of their rope.
I have always recalled the book "Get Even: The Complete Book of Dirty Tricks" by George Hayduke. It quoted Kwame Nkrumah (who I'm sure is reviled for his brand of terrorism). I am still struck by his notion that:
"...an indispensable preliminary to battle is to attack the mind of the enemy, to subvert the will to fight before the battle begins... a revolutionary army attacks an irresolute and demoralized army."
After seven years working in local City Government (a career unjustly ruined), I realized that politics does indeed come down to personal action and responsibility. Individuals may be Cogs in the Wheel, but if this wheel were to be interfered with, "monkey wrench-ed," there is an inevitable cascade effect.
Too many people are unwilling to live with the chaos of revolution.
But, is the American government actually subverting OUR will to fight? "By any means necessary" is sounding better and better.