Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Reconsidering Impeachment
In Berkeley, it's difficult to travel more than a few blocks without seeing an "Impeach Bush" bumper sticker. And whenever I write a column about the 43rd President, I receive emails suggesting that the simplest solution to America's problems is his impeachment. Nonetheless, I'd never taken the possibility of impeachment seriously until this week, when I realized I've had enough: I want Dubya to go down.
The movement to impeach George W. Bush started around Labor Day, in 2002, when it become clear that he was determined to invade Iraq. In March 2003, it gathered momentum when many Americans joined marches and silent vigils to protest what we considered to be an ill-considered and dangerous action. Bush was enormously popular and many "blue" Americans felt we had lost our country: we couldn't understand why so many of our fellow citizens supported Dubya; or why they voted to reelect him in 2004. In those dark days, the impeachment movement seemed to be the last refuge of die-hard liberals: a defiant stance that had little hope of success.
Times changed: in 2006, Democrats took control of Congress and Bush's popularity rating sank to Nixonian depths. Meanwhile, evidence of his malfeasance exploded. Suddenly, even conservative Republicans were criticizing the President, calling for him to abandon his customary intractability and engage in real bipartisanship.
As the impeachment movement grew stronger, I resisted its call for several reasons. While I've never doubted that there are strong legal grounds for Bush's impeachment, I've been troubled by pragmatic considerations: if Dubya was removed from office, Dick Cheney would become President; impeachment proceedings would tie up the 110th Congress at a time when congressional energy needs to be focused on undoing Bush Administration mistakes -- such as ending the war in Iraq; and the impeachment process would further polarize a nation that has become far too adversarial and combative. When the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said that impeachment was "off the table," I agreed: it's one thing to be right and quite another thing to be effective, I thought.
My thinking changed after I read George Packer's magnificent commentary in the May 14th New Yorker Magazine No Blame, No Shame. Packer asks the key question: "Why has it become impossible to admit a mistake in Washington and accept the consequences?" I pondered the fact that "under the Bush Administration no senior civilian official or military officer has been held responsible for what will probably turn out to be the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history." Then, I had an epiphany: I understood the "why" Packer asks about. The reason why Bush never admits a mistake or accepts consequences is because he believes he can get away with it. He was raised in a system of privilege where there's no accountability.
George Bush's unwillingness to be held personally responsible reflects on more than his Administration. It's a symptom of a deeper malaise that infects American politics and, sadly, much of American society. It's what I think of as the dual justice system. I first ran into this system many years ago when I was an idealistic probation officer in Orange County: courthouse habitués informed me that the defendants whose cases I handled were exclusively from the lower and middle class, because there was a different system of justice for the rich and powerful - patricians didn't go through the same process that plebeians did. Whether their crime was petty theft or murder, the elite received different treatment than they would have if they had been poor, or a person of color.
There are two systems of justice in the United States: one for the rich and powerful and a far different system for everyone else. Rob a bank and you go to prison; loot a savings and loan as an executive and you're likely to get a hefty fine, if that. Every day, we read about corporate executives who mismanaged their firms, caused the layoffs of thousands of poorly paid workers, and then danced away with millions of dollars of severance pay. We see what happened to the architects of the disaster in Iraq: Bremer, Franks, and Tenet got the "Presidential Medal of Freedom," Rice and Wolfowitz got promoted, as did the invasion supporters within the Pentagon. There was no accountability; they got away with it. So far.
That's why the impeachment of George W. Bush would send an important signal to other elected officials, and the power elite. It would be an indication that the American people are tired of Washington business-as-usual and serious about holding our leaders accountable for their actions. I'm not suggesting that the focus be exclusively on Bush, because I think his whole crew - Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, and Rumsfeld, among others - should go down, too. However, the logical place to start is with the guy at the top: the decider-in-chief.
Bob Dylan once wrote" "even the President of the United States sometimes has to stand naked." This is the time for the trappings of power to be stripped from George Bush. He needs to stand naked before the law and take full responsibility for the failures of his Administration. Impeach Dubya.
Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer. He can be reached at bobburnett@comcast.net
29 Comments so far
Show All"He needs to stand naked before the law and take full responsibility for the failures of his Administration."
But that would involve him submitting himself to the rule of law and admitting there's a greater temporal authority than his administration.....and that will never happen.
Yes, accountability is a good reason for impeachment, but the biggest reason of all is that this country is on the ropes fiscally, morally, ethically. People are dying every day because of the incredibly bad leadership that was installed in the White House, against the wishes of the American voters, twice.
I think the fact that this administration stole two elections and is destroying our country with incredible zeal should also figure heavily in peoples' deliberations about whether or not to impeach them all.
From another Dylan song: How many deaths will it take 'til you know that too many people have died?
Any wonder he refuses to accept the Hague Court's jurisdiction over Americans?
Is the cherry picking of intelligence enough for Congress to start impeachment proceedings? I wonder how people are going to get them to admit that they did so. If Bush et. al. insist that they were misled by the intelligence community which, is part of their pattern of response (blame someone else), I doubt congress can mount an effective impeachment prosecution.
Can congress impeach an official based on incompetence? If so, they may stand a better chance.
No, that's why they've mixed idiocy with plutocracy for quite some time. To the extent they can toss a cloak of incompetence over something, the more they can get away with.
Get real. It takes 60 Senate votes to impeach. We can't even get more than 52 to even disagree with Bush, much less impeach. As 2008 looms, more Republicans will cautiously distance themselves from him, but not impeach.
I think our time is better spent working to empower third party candidates. The DLC has a majority in the Democratic Party, and so along with the Republicans, they will go on shipping our jobs overseas to sweatshops full of kids, and giving our taxes to the corporations, and continue to water down the ethics "reforms" until they are drowned in the bathtub.
After what Nancy Pelosi pulled, along with Rangel and Baucus, I realized that Ralph Nader was right all along. The voters need to depart the Democratic Party. The voters are interested in populist candidates, and the Democratic leadership will fight like hell to keep that from happening.
Congress can start impeachment for the $700 million in Afghanistan operations appropriations which Bush illegally diverted to the Iraq war run-up. Short, simple, concise, provable - and it gets their foot in the door. (Sort of like trying Capone for tax evasion or Saddam for a mere 150 deaths.) Then, Ken Starr-like, they can progressively open the many closed doors and Pandora's boxes of this administration and wave the soiled dresses of their illegalities, lies and violations of the Constitution from the Jefferson Memorial.
just because an impeachment proceeding may not be "successful" in the sense of leading to a removal of bush etc. from office, doesn't mean it should not be undertaken.
if you have cancer and all the doctors say it's hopeless, are you just going to lie down and wait for death or are you going to listen to your own soul which quite likely has a great deal more wisdom and possibly pull off a much happier scenario? so that even if you may only prolong the inevitable, at least you have the satisfaction of trying.
the reason we undertake impeachment is in the process, not necessarily the result. that said, making leaders more aware that those who they represent do not give them carte blanche to ride roughshod over either the constitution or common decency is definitely a step in the right direction.
Even if it were to happen, (which is a pipe dream)
THEN WHAT?
How do we get rid of the corporate overlords?
Of course, in the name of justice, it should be done. But then everyone would expect justice for themselves. The wealthy would no longer have the privilege of buying justice.
These people have stolen two elections and are waging Muslim genocide. How can anyone be so deluded as to think that something as PATHETIC as CONGRESS can stop them? Do you think they aren't prepared for this? They have had us in checkmate for years. Stop thinking like a pawn. Start thinking like a chess master.
Stop trying to stop this unstoppable war and start thinking about surviving it.
"George Bush's unwillingness to be held personally responsible reflects on more than his Administration. It's a symptom of a deeper malaise that infects American politics and, sadly, much of American society."
There's far more to it than the "dual justice system." One of the best primers for our current "malaise" is "Revolt of the Elites" by Christopher Lasch, and I would also suggest his "Culture of Narcissism.
The biggest reason for impeachment is to STOP the "Institution" of presidential impunity that's existed since the end of WW2. It's the preservation of this institution that's the primary reason why Pelosi opted to become a felon and lie to Congress when she took her oath to uphold and defend the contitution, and oath broken as soon as the phrase "off the table" emerged from her mouth. And it gets worse.
No impeachment conviction represents a pardon for Bush and all the others who escape that sanction. They will receive their massive pensions, which includes secret service and legal protection for their many crimes. Thus, impeachment represents the pathway for starting upon the long raod for redemtion of our country's Soul.
Sorry, this appeared with the wrong article!
impeachment requires a simple majority.
conviction on the impeachment requires a 2/3 majority
impeachment is a slam dunk, and when the truth comes out in public in the impeachment process, the required 2/3 to convict would be a no brainer as well, as the Repugs run for cover
If this tragic war were a local crime, Bush would be toast.
Somehow, because it is a war on the international stage, we all sit like deer caught in the headlights, unable to act.
Crime: war of aggression by crafting and presenting a fraudulent case for attacking Iraq. Over 100,000 civilian casualties!
Motive: imperial access to $20 trillion dollars of crude oil
fingerprints: The WMD threat Cheney and Bush forced down our throats as an absolute certainty never existed! What more evidence does anyone need to build a case for fraud?
Circumstancial evidence: Downing Street Memos, Cheney was all over the CIA before the war, and how about all of the damning TV/press conference footage! PNAC letter about invading Iraq and PNAC members in or affiliated with the Bush administration. Cheney's work at Halliburton and "secret energy meetings to discuss Iraq's oil" (before the war began).
defense: bad judgement of sources and faulty intelligence
alibis: none
witnesses for the prosecution: Paul O'Neil, Richard Clarke, George Tenet, and Colin Powell.
Bush should be legally toasted in front of the world in a show trial for US damage control.
Any other ideas?
President Bush ought be impeached along with the lot of neo-consersatives. At a minimum he should be contained by taking away authority and funds. He and his gang of neo-conservatives are nothing less than dangerous, causing much much damage to America.
Ron Paul for President. Michael Gravel for Vice-President.
All others need not apply.
...the impeachment process would further polarize a nation that has become far too adversarial and combative.
This I find to be the truly worrisome statement. The "you are either with us, or against us" attitude of the neocons and Bush-believers is sowing the seeds for the next US civil war.
Doesn't the Constitution make it possible to recall Bush by a referendum rather than trying to impeach him? That way we can get rid of Bush while avoiding trial by a bunch of cowards. We don't need Congress, fuck em.
Impeachment is the only way to cleanse our country. It's the only way to repudiate the actions of the last six years. Simply waiting til the next elections is tacit endorsement of current policy. Even if conviction doesn't result, the effort would be worth it. It isn't only about "winning" the impeachment process, it's about the process.
Why couldn't they be charged with racketeering? Is this not organized crime? Aren't the RICO laws strong enough to go after anyone, regardless of their office? Isn't corruption in high places exactly what they were made for?
Seriously, does anyone know?
It does look like the brownshirts are in control, but we have beat them once before.
Yes impeach and then send them to the Hague to stand trial for War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and Crimes against the Planet.
Then follow the money!!
Where did it all go?
Get it all back, every penny, plus interest.
Place 100% taxation levies on all war profiteering and looting.
All criminal activities perpetrated by the gang must be exposed and publicly accounted for.
All perpetrators of this world heist must have all of their assets held to pay reparations.
If those buggers believe wealth begets godliness then we'll clearly see them for what they are after they have paid the piper.
Impeachment is reqired to restore the rule of law.
If you do not impeach, there will be more divisiveness between republicans and democrats.
All talk of impeachment that there has been will be seen as unsubstantiated trash talking from people who didn't have a leg to stand on. After all, they impeached Clinton for choosing to lie about a personal issue, so the standards of impeachment must be low.
The rest of the republicans will just look at it as a game which they have choosen the winning side.
The notion of impeachment for crimes and misdemeanors goes as far as petty burglaries and private indiscretions. In our country we do not impeach presidents for gross ignorance or momentous arrogance that kills thousands of innocent folk.
Impeachment is the best way to redeem ourselves as a people for the crimes of our government. They must both be impeached though, Bush and Cheney.
Just to clarify one posters comment -- it does NOT take 60 votes to impeach.
It takes a simle majority in the House to impeach; it takes 2/3 of the Senate to CONVICT on the impeachment.
Also, until and unless their is a viable, strong third party, it is futile to think that a third party is the answer to our problems.
ooops "there" not their
After reading Comey's testimony, I believe that it is time for the Republicans to join Democrats and draw up Articles of Impeachment.
Look up the testimony -- read it, then call, write, email your congresscritter, when s/he is Repub or Dem.
I wasn't not in favor of pursuing impeachment until yesterday's testimony.
Republicans would do well to distance themselves from Bush towards 2008. No better distance can their be except to stand up for whats right and fix the problem by supporting moves to impeach. The things that the Bushies have done are wrong whether Republican, Democrat, Independant, or Green.
If Congress ever became serious about impeachment we should be prepared to see the Military Commissions Act come into play over night.
A trumped up disturbance, maybe another inside-job 9/11 and you'll see martial law and the military in US cities.
Impeachment became a non-option with 9/11, Homeland Security, Military Commissions, Habeas Corpus, and Blackwater.
It appears to me that only the military has the power and the resources to perform the radical house cleaning necessary in the Congress, the Administration, and among the legion of neo-con jackals.
When that's done, it will be time to tackle corporations and the Money that got us into this mess.
At this point, anything short of that looks like so much busy work.
Comey's testimony pushed me over the edge as well. I never dreamed the day would come when John Ashcroft would look like a Constitutional hero... in comparison. God only knows what he stopped them from doing under his watch. Whatever it was, they are undoubtedly doing it now under Gonzales.
Thus all the 'secrecy.' It has nothing to do with terra-ists. The Bushies are protecting their hides now, because undoubtedly whatever they are doing is so unbelievably illegal and morally reprehensible that Americans everywhere would freak out if the truth came out (and this includes the military.)
What will Congress do? Oh, most likely nothing at all. Their corporate masters won't let them. When I watched the Comey testimony, I realized that I was finally looking at Zappa's brick wall in the back of the theater:
"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre."
- The late, great Frank Zappa