It is a question I am faced with at every public event I participate in: What are my views on the impeachment of President Bush and others in his administration? Generally, the question is preceded by an emotional statement listing the “crimes” which Mr. Bush is accused of committing, and the questioner has already found him guilty. Whether it is the war in Iraq, conspiracy theories about 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, or any given variation of the theme of constitutional abuse of power, the one thing all of the questioners have in common (besides the desirable outcome) is their singular conviction that the president is guilty.
I have considerable sympathy for this stance. I myself have stated on more than one occasion that I believe President Bush has lied to Congress and the American people about the reasons for going to war with Iraq (i.e., the whole WMD/al-Qaida intelligence fabrication/misrepresentation fiasco). I also believe that the president’s sanctioning of warrantless wire-tapping, along with a litany of other abuses of power stemming from the Patriot Act approved by Congress after Sept. 11, 2001, likewise constitutes grounds for impeachment. Several Democrats in Congress are actually discussing the possibility of impeachment of President Bush and the irrepressible Congressmen Dennis Kucinich has actually introduced articles of impeachment for Vice President Dick Cheney.
Even some Republicans are getting on board the impeachment bandwagon, although with caveats. “Any president who says ‘I don’t care’ or ‘I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else’ or ‘I don’t care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed’-if a president really believes that, then there are … ways to deal with that,” Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, said of President Bush in obvious reference to impeachment.
Hagel is correct: Impeachment is the constitutional remedy for a unilateral president whose governance is an insult to traditional American democratic norms and values. However, impeachment alone is simply a measure which addresses the symptoms of a larger malaise that has stricken America. The arrogance associated with the concept of the unitary executive is prevalent throughout mainstream American political life. The passivity of the legislative branch is one byproduct of the dominance of the unitary executive. It is also an indicator that the will of the people, as expressed through their election of the people’s representatives to the Congress of the United States, no longer has the weight and bearing long associated with the American democratic experience.
Any effort to impeach Bush and any of his administration found to be engaged in activities classifiable as “high crimes and misdemeanors” would fail to rein in the unitary executive core of any successor. One only has to listen to the rhetoric of the Democratic candidates for president to understand that this trend is as deeply rooted among them as it is with President Bush. Americans today look for leaders without recognizing the absolute necessity of electing team players. The Founding Fathers deliberately designed the executive branch to be strong and independent, but also made sure, through an elaborate system of checks and balances, that it operated merely as one of three separate but equal branches of government.
The “in your face” efforts of the Bush administration to minimize the role of Congress and to achieve political control of the judiciary are simply more public manifestations of trends that occurred in a more quiet fashion in past administrations, Republican and Democratic alike. When America elects a leader who states clearly that he or she will work with their equal partners in governance, the Congress, for the good of the country, and who will acknowledge the supremacy of law set forth in the form of binding legislation passed by the will of Congress void of any limiting or contradicting “presidential signing statement,” then we will finally have a leader who is truly worthy of the title “President of the United States of America.”
But this will not happen of its own volition. The impeachment of President Bush would not in and of itself terminate executive unilateralism. It would only limit its implementation on the most visible periphery, driving its destructive designs back into the shadows of government, away from the public eye, and as such, public accountability. Impeach President Bush, yes, if in fact he can be charged with the commission of acts which meet the constitutional standard for impeachment (and I believe he could, if Congress only had the will to do its job). But to truly heal America, we must repudiate everything President Bush stands for, in terms of not only public and foreign policy, but also in terms of his style of governance, since the former is derived from the latter.
Repudiation is a strong term, defined as “rejecting as having no authority or binding force,” to “cast off or disown,” or to “reject with disapproval or condemnation.” In my opinion, the complete repudiation of the presidency of George W. Bush is the only recourse we have collectively as a people to not only seek redress for the wrongs committed by the Bush administration, but also to purge society of this cancer that threatens to consume and destroy us as a whole, and which would continue to manifest itself in our system of governance even after any impeachment proceedings.
Like any cancerous growth, the Bush administration has attached its malignancy to the American nation in a cruel fashion, its poisonous tentacles stretching deep into our national fabric in a manner that makes difficult the task of culling out the healthy from the diseased. But we cannot truly repudiate something without its complete and utter elimination from our midst. As such, there must be a litmus test to help us differentiate the good from the bad, that which must be restored from that which must be eliminated. For me, there is only one true test: that of constitutionality. There will be those who argue, and have argued, that the time is well past for an oppressed people (and one would be a fool not to comprehend that under the Bush administration, the American people have in fact been oppressed) to rely on the niceties of legal argument, especially when the system of law we seek to use in our defense has been so thoroughly corrupted by those who seek to impose tyranny.
I was recently in Ireland, where I delivered a presentation on the current situation in the Middle East. In criticizing the Bush administration’s policies, I launched into a staunch defense of the Constitution of the United States and decried what I believed to be the inadequacies of Congress and the American people in defending their constitutional inheritance. Afterward, I was confronted by an Irishman who challenged me on the validity of our Constitution. As he pointed out, none other than President Thomas Jefferson himself, the author of the Declaration of Independence and a proponent of constitutional law, is famously quoted as saying, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” If, as I maintained, the Bush administration was deviating so far off course from the ideals and values set forth in the Constitution, was it not time for a new American Revolution to “refresh” liberty with “the blood of patriots and tyrants?”
There can be no doubt that Jefferson was a promoter of resistance to the forces of tyranny. It was he who, after all, who penned the famous words proclaiming the need for American independence from the tyranny of British rule: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness …when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
If faced with a situation today in which the American people felt that our current form of government sought to imprison them “under absolute Despotism,” would we not be obligated to apply “natural manure” in an effort to refresh the “tree of liberty?”
Short of a complete and total abdication on the part of the Congress, the collapse of the judiciary system, and a shocking decision by those men and women who wear the uniform of the armed forces of the United States to lend force of arms to the will of a dictatorial president, I cannot ever envision a time in which conditions in these United States could deteriorate to the point that a violent revolution “of the people and by the people” would be required to restore constitutional legitimacy and authority. Having said that, I remind the reader that with so few Americans professing any working understanding of the Constitution, it is difficult to speak of people defending that which they remain ignorant of.
While I reject violence as a means of redressing social wrongs, especially when applied to issues of governance, and instead rely on the rule of law as manifested by the Constitution and those legitimate bodies empowered by the Constitution to remedy every situation, I cannot help but fear the moment when the foundation of legitimacy which defines who we are and what we are as a nation fades away into irrelevance amidst a sea of complacency and ignorance. There is no greater breeding ground for the forces of tyranny than the surrender of civic responsibility on the part of those entrusted with the defense of liberty. And in this I do not mean the Congress of the United States, but rather the people of the United States, the duly elected representatives of whom constitute the Congress.
I fear not the bloody rebellion of an outraged citizenry, but rather the passive submission of a shameful mass which betrays the cause of liberty and freedom through the abandonment of the Constitution, and the obligations of citizenship derived thereof, in favor of the narcotic of consumerism. Such a mass, foreswearing blind obedience to those who profess how to best construct a cocoon that immerses the occupant in transitory comfort, is the most pressing problem facing America today. In a nation whose defining document begins, “We the People,” I find that it is we the people who constitute the greatest threat to the future of America. It is not through the force of our actions, but rather the vacuum created by our inaction and apathy, a vacuum all too readily filled by those who would have us exchange our hard-fought freedoms for a gilded cage of market-driven consumerism.
This is the main reason why I am not a proponent of the ‘impeach now’ mentality so prevalent in political circles that oppose George W. Bush. The expediency of impeachment simply replaces one source of tyranny (President Bush) with another (whomever replaces him). It is not the failures of an individual that have gotten us to where we are today, but rather the failure of the collective. So before we speak of impeachment and the notion of executive accountability, I would like to address the issue of repudiation and the necessity of civic responsibility.
Whatever field I endeavored to participate in,-whether as a football player in college, an officer in the Marines or a firefighter today,-whenever the going got tough, it was always pounded into my head to fall back on “the basics.” That is to say, a foundation of norms from which everything else was derived. By adhering to these “basics,” I and others were able to navigate whatever treacherous course we were attempting, more often than not with success. As such, in formulating a coherent response to the challenge put to me by the Irishman concerning the need to “fertilize the tree of liberty,” I find myself falling back on the “basics” of citizenship, to seek out the fundamentals of individual responsibility in the American democratic experiment. And there is no better source for these fundamentals than the most strident defender of the individual American-Thomas Jefferson himself.
Jefferson was in France during the drafting of the Constitution, and did not play a direct role in negotiating its content. But such was his heft as a founder of America that his opinion was sought by many of those who were so engaged. One of these critical players, James Madison (who later became the fourth President of the United States, following Jefferson), wrote a letter to Jefferson shortly after the Constitutional Convention finished its work in September 1787, and prior to ratification, interpreting critical aspects of the Constitution. I view Madison’s words to be worthy of consideration when addressing the issue of citizenship and responsibility.
“In the American Constitution,” he wrote on Oct. 24, 1787, “the general authority will be derived entirely from the subordinate authorities. The Senate will represent the States in their political capacity; the other House will represent the people of the States in their individual capacity. The former will be accountable to their constituents at moderate, the latter at short periods. The President also derives his appointment from the States, and is periodically accountable to them. This dependence of the General on the local authorities seems effectually to guard the latter against any dangerous encroachments of the former; whilst the latter, within their respective limits, will be continually sensible of the abridgement of their power, and be stimulated by ambition to resume the surrendered portion of it.”
In short, Madison underscored the fundamental role of the people in the chain of accountability, and the necessity of their informed involvement if the system of American constitutional governance was to work. A breakdown on the part of the “general authority” would lead to chaos and anarchy. Likewise, the failure of the “subordinate authority,” inclusive of the people, to hold the “general authority” in check would facilitate the slide toward tyranny and oppression.
Jefferson himself, before the convening of the Constitutional Convention, had long reflected on the issues of constitutional government. Just as Jefferson’s rendering of the Declaration of Independence drew from his earlier work, “A Summary View of the Rights of British America,” so, too, were his views on the American Constitution drawn from his earlier writings on issues pertaining to the Constitution of Virginia, which are contained in a collection of work dating from 1781-82 known as “Notes on Virginia.” The purpose of a Constitution, Jefferson wrote, was ” … to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights.”
Here Jefferson himself answers the question of the need to “fertilize” the “tree of liberty” with the blood of rebellion: It is not required, nor desired, so long as a system of rule by law (i.e., a Constitution) is present and adhered to. The importance of a Constitution in preserving the character of a nation through perpetuity was paramount in Jefferson’s view. “It is true,” he argued in his “Notes on Virginia,” that “we are as yet secured against tyrannical laws by the spirit of the times. … But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless.”
Today one only needs to observe the corruption of our rulers and the carelessness of our people to understand the significance of the Constitution when it comes to preserving these United States of America. The nefarious nature of the Bush cancer is that, in its infection of the American system, it seeks to draw legitimacy for its tyrannical actions by citing the very same Constitution it seeks to destroy. The promoters of this point of view cite the academic term “Unitary Executive Theory” when defining their philosophy. To me, it is nothing less than treason. The Founding Fathers, in discussing the concept of a “unitary executive,” made use of the term in a manner reflective of their desire to restrain executive power, versus the extreme interpretation embraced by counsels to President Bush and Vice President Cheney who seek to expand executive power and authority to near dictatorial levels, especially during a time of war. The tendency on the part of President Bush to obviate the role of Congress is well documented, in matters pertaining to governance in times of peace as well as war. The unprecedented number of presidential signing statements issued by Bush speaks volumes to this trend. These signing statements, historically a device used by executives to protect presidential prerogative when it comes to how a bill might be interpreted in a court of law, have been used by the Bush administration to negate the legal impact of a given piece of legislation by clearly stating the intent of the president to act in a manner inconsistent with the letter of the law. That the president believes he has a right to conduct himself in this manner is the height of hubris; that Congress continues to facilitate this behavior unchallenged represents the depth of legislative depravity.
It would be interesting to have a national debate on the concept of a “unitary executive,” where the proponents would cite the “vesting clause” (Article II, Section 1) of the Constitution, which states, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The advocates of a “unitary executive” combine the “vesting clause” with Article II, Section 3, Clause 4, the “take care” clause, which states that the president must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” to make a case for a seamless hierarchy of power solely vested in the executive. Stephen Calabrisi and Kevin Rhodes staked out this argument in their 1992 article, “The Structural Constitution: Unitary Executive, Plural Judiciary,” in the Harvard Law Review (Issue 105, 1992). The foundation of their argument is drawn from a backwards reading of the Constitution, which addresses the issue of “Mandatory Jurisdiction” as set forth in the “vesting clause” not of the executive, but rather the judiciary, in Article III of the Constitution.
By establishing a link between the exclusive authority of the courts derived from the “vesting clause” of Article III, Calabrisi and Rhodes argue that a similar exclusive authority, this time for the executive, is derived from the “vesting clause” of Article II.
Of course, the Constitution was not written from back to front, and should neither be read nor interpreted from back to front. Missing from the entire dynamic of the underlying theory of the proponents of a “unitary executive” is the pressing reality of the Constitution itself, in particular the “vesting clause” of Article I, Section 1, which states that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
Likewise, Calabrisi and Rhodes ignore Article I, Section 8, which enumerates the powers of Congress, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (the “necessary and proper” clause), which states that Congress shall have all the power “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
The “necessary and proper” clause gained preeminence with the landmark case of “McCulloch v. Maryland,” decided by the Supreme Court in 1819. The decision by Chief Justice Marshall clearly established the principle that that the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution’s express powers, in order to create a functional national government. Marshall noted that the “necessary and proper” clause “purport[s] to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted.” Marshall went on:
This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted.
That Chief Justice Marshall was speaking about the Congress of the United States when addressing the issue of the expansion of enumerated power should not be missed by those who seek to invalidate the theory and practice of a “unitary executive.”
The sad fact is, however, there are far too few Americans who are equipped and/or prepared to engage in a constitutional discussion, not to mention one of this magnitude. Having failed to read and comprehend this vital cornerstone of America, they are poorly positioned to come to its defense in this, the Constitution’s time of need. You cannot defend that which you remain ignorant of. Thomas Jefferson, in an 1802 letter to his friend and confidant, Joseph Priestly, noted that, “Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed.” Thus, an American people ignorant of their Constitution remain a people collectively void of principle or creed. Given that state of affairs that is the American body politic today, this is a harsh yet far too accurate indictment of the state of American citizenship.
Those who espouse the nobility of patriotism by extolling Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, which addresses the issue of impeachment of the president and vice president, are all too mute about the remainder of that great document. Whether this silence is derived from negligence or ignorance, or a combination thereof, is not the point. What lies at the heart of this issue is that void of a solid foundation of “creed,” as Thomas Jefferson put it, to fall back on in times of constitutional crisis derived from the abuse of power and authority. The American people have only a bottomless pit as their support, and this is no support at all. Impeach President Bush? Maybe, if due process dictates. Repudiate President Bush? Absolutely, especially if one aspires for an America that truly matches the visions and ideals set forth by the Founding Fathers.
Repudiate the notion of a “unitary executive.”
Repudiate presidential signing statements.
Repudiate executive violation of Article 6 of the Constitution, which binds municipal law in America with binding treaty obligations incurred when the Senate ratifies a treaty or agreement by a two-thirds majority or better.
Repudiate “faith-based initiatives” pushed by any branch of government.
Repudiate a weak Congress.
Repudiate weak senators or representatives, especially those with a track record of abrogating their constitutional mandate.
Repudiate ignorance, especially that of the American citizen who knows little or nothing about the Constitution which empowers him or her.
Repudiate consumerism, especially the virulent form it takes in the selfish framework of American-centric capitalism.
Repudiate pre-emptive wars of aggression.
Repudiate American Empire.
Instead, embrace the empowerment of education. Embrace active citizenship. Embrace the rule of law, as set forth by the Constitution. Do all of this and, in the end, if conditions and circumstance warrant, impeach President Bush and any of those in his administration so deserving.
Thomas Jefferson was prescient in his musings to another confidant, Moses Robinson, in 1801 when he wrote, “I sincerely wish … we could see our government so secured as to depend less on the character of the person in whose hands it is trusted. Bad men will sometimes get in and with such an immense patronage may make great progress in corrupting the public mind and principles. This is a subject with which wisdom and patriotism should be occupied.”
That wise American patriots would be so occupied today is my wish and dream.
Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books, 2005) , “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006) and his latest, “Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement” (Nation Books, April 2007).
© 2007 TruthDig.com
From the beginning it was evident that BushCo was so deserving. A more patient occupation with wisdom and patriotism is presently a luxury reserved only for those not doing the dying.
Thanks Scott for putting into words so eloquently what I have been feeling that their are systemic problems that will remain far after Bush leaves office that will have to be dealt with or it’s just more of the same. You are ahead of the curve as usual.
Ritter’s essay on repudiation is spot on. It is the imperial, dictatorial notion of a “unitary presidency” that is at the root of the problem of governance in the U.S. And he is exactly correct in saying that Democrats and Republicans alike have advanced and developed that truly evil notion into the horrible reality that we face today. As have (an overwhelming) majority of the U.S. population.
All that said, it is my opinion that we should still advance the campaign for impeachment as vigorously as we can - in whatever arena(s) where we may live or work. While impeachment deals with a symptom of a disease that Ritter so accurately describes, the collective act of moving toward the specific, concrete cure of the symptom would be so empowering and educational that more people would be forced to look honestly at the disease that underlies it.
[It was especially heartening to see this self-described Republican critique “American-centric capitalism.” I doubt if Ritter, who has become one of our leading public intellectuals, would have ever come to that realization if he did not first go through a process that included his hands-on understanding of disarmament and weapons of mass destruction as a young, Marine junior officer]
Before Bush announced his candidacy for president, he was interviewed privately by George Schultz of Bethel.
There is no doubt in my mind he had to agree to fulfill certain tasks such as what’s going on now and with Rice shepherding him.
There has been talk of Rice of Chevron coaching the then Governor Bush.
Repudiation means nothing to a sociopath with Power; Look at George Schultz and who he takes his Orders from … Rothschilds!
Though he’s given to prolixity, Mr. Ritter has an excellent handle on the problems with today’s America. Fixing these problems is another matter. We have turned our country over to corporate America and we’ve exchanged patriotism for profit margin. I’m not sure that merely doing a bunch of repudiating is gonna be enough.
Ritter is right on most points. A debate on unitary executive would be refreshing, but intellectual leaders are intended to guide America’s understanding and those that depart from Bush’s “real” world view are hardly allowed in media. Other sources have cited how few anti-war voices were allowed in media prior to the Iraqi debacle’s onset. Ritter also presumes there is an agency to right what’s off balance, but an insidious catch 22 between Bush stacking the courts WITH those who accept the “our father” unitary executive “theology” ensures that no one in a position of judicial authority will “over rule” this nemesis. Third, indeed Bush is a cancer, both astrologically and literally. And lastly, while there is a segment of the citizenry that would prefer American idol and gossip for taking their responsible role in a democratic republic to be informed, there are many who ARE informed and find their positions marginalized because, as in a complex chess game, all the important pieces on the board have already been co-opted by this motley crew. So long as power affiliates with money, and money can buy access, and access shapes perceptions, these well thought out points remain true and significant, but the ways and means to implement them are where our system is clogged, as in full of s–t, in need of a major dose of Cosmic rotor rooter.
Hey, Jim Naran:
George Schultz did not talk to George Bush in a synagogue called Bethel. George Schultz was head of building giant Bechtel. I do not think Bechtel is part of the “Rothschild” empire.
Bethel, by the way, means “house of god.”
Great discussion and exposition of our vital Constitutional foundations by Scott Ritter. He is perceptive and correct about the disease of consumerism, ignorance and indifference throughout the body politic. We do indeed need to wake up in America! He explodes the Bush & Co. myth of the “unitary executive” and rightly places blame on both major parties who remain firmly in the orbit of corporatist Imperialism. Having said that, I still feel we need to press forward with impeachment proceedings because the very act of doing so will focus the attention of the American people on our Constitution and help us restore our vital citizenship role.
Unfortunately, most of the booboisie can barely read, let alone read a legal document like the Constitution. 98% of Americans won’t understand what Ritter is talking about, as their brains have been turned to mush by the boob tube. If the emperor in all his fake glory mouths propaganda, most of Idiot America (Ritter’s term) believes it, because they can understand the simplicity of good v. evil, and that’s all they understand.
So, as a Brit observer, may I ask you all: does the US Constitution need amending? (I ask, in part, because you seem to me to treat your constitution with a reverence not unlike that with which Creationists treat the Book of Genesis, and this makes the task of changing it to prevent the kind of abuses inflicted upon it, and you, now, potentially traumatic.)
Repudiatation and impeachment are interesting, but what of imprisonment?
The core issue indeed is the above-the-law/fascistic/pre-magna-carta office that can only be checked by a philosophical/ideological response. What if the turns out to be an ax-wielding maniac? Surely the unitary thing can only go so far. We’re still dealing with a human office here, not a man-god, pharaoah, etc. aren’t we?
I’m speaking generally here. Because as much as we vilify Bush, we may end up with a president that makes us beg for another term under him. An unchecked executive with 800+ signing statements, warrantless eavesdropping, no habeas corpus, secret prisons, etc. Our rights should not exist at the mercy of tyrants but, rather, codified rule of law. We’re evidently setting ourselves up for a reckoning.
Secretary bird: It needs enforcing! It’s the most brilliant governing doctrine to date… IF the balance of powers it designed for operation were operating AS (in) the balance intended! It was inspired… the founders, and especially Jefferson where aware of some timeless metaphysical truths about the relationship of mankind to Creator’s plan for a wider evolution based on free thought & expression. Societies will always have tension between fundamentalists and the experimental vanguard. The test is how both can operate within a larger whole that is respective of everyone’s viable voice. Now we have pay to play economics ONLY… while the citizenry still seeks to have its voice. The blueprint for that balance remains, the problem is those who have stolen/seized/bought/bribed power have near absolute power and NO intention of sharing any of it. They ARE in that respect traitors, and this is where an understanding of their modus operandi relative TO the Constitution might convince the Limbaugh/O’Reilly crowd that something IS rotten in Denmark, and it’s got nothing to do with “the liberals.”
Who killed the entire Romanov Royal Family and began the communist revolution; how many Russian Christians were killed.
Hint:
Soon after the revolution anti-semitism was a crime punishable by death.
Hint:
Kruschev real name was Perlmutter.
Impeachment is a gut wrenching process to put the country through but it’s not as bad as letting these arrogant bastards leave office when their terms expire boasting that in the US everything is for sale.
Excellent work Mr. Ritter. Thank you for this piece and all your other great work.
Everyone please call your senator(s) & congress once a week and tell them to get the warcriminals out of the white house now.
If we want peace, we have to fight for justice!
Kucinich ‘gets it’, thats why he’s minimalized by our hideously corrupt establishment with their filthy nasty bloody hands:
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich: “Privatizing Iraq’s Oil is Theft!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26Lr17usifg&eurl=
http://kucinich.us/
Repudiation is fine, and I agree with Ritter on many points. However, I disagree in believing that repudiation should *replace* impeachment. We should both repudiate AND impeach Bush, as well as Cheney and the rest of the neocon extremists who populate this administration. I agree that impeachment will not prevent future Presidents from arrogating power in the way Bush has, but this is not the purpose of impeachment. Impeachment is a hugely SYMBOLIC act, and as “tj” pointed out, even removing the symptom of the disease will cause many people who are still asleep to examine what the underlying causes of the disease are all about. By contrast, NOT impeaching sends the message that the Executive branch is above the law, and that there’s no need to hold anyone accountable.
Finally, while it’s fine to chastise the American people for their consumerism and self-indulgence, I’m getting a bit tired of this sort of critique. It’s a very common reprimand these days (even among leftists), but it’s also self-defeating. While there’s a good bit of truth to it, it strikes many people as self-righteous, as if the writer is saying, “I’m a patriotic, hard-driving activist, whereas everyone who’s still watching TV and playing with their ipods is an irresponsible slob. I’m a good guy, you’re a jerk.” I don’t think this posture goes over too well. On the one hand people are told over and over again how the “American Dream” consists of material prosperity and the leisure time to enjoy that prosperity. Yet as soon as people attain to that level, they’re lectured about their hedonism. It would be more productive if Ritter, instead of sermonizing, tried considering whether this country allows the possibility of both material prosperity AND activism, and if so, what proportion of each is appropriate for a given time, and for each particular person. We simply can’t expect everyone to live in the same way. For example, like many middle class Americans, I have a full-time job, and when I get home from work I like to enjoy some leisure time. And so do most other people I know. But that does not PRECLUDE activism — it merely entails a personal assessment of what proportion of one’s life is devoted to rest and leisure, on one hand, and what proportion is devoted to activism on the other. Ritter may have no problem with political activism 24/7, but that (I presume) is his full-time job. And I’m sure he gets amply compensated for it. But to expect all Americans to be full-time activists is simply unrealistic. Even making a single phone call to your Congressperson each week is better than nothing. And if most people were to do even this much it could make a huge difference. So, again — rather than sermonize about the hedonism of the American people, which tends to alienate the very people Ritter would “convert,” a better strategy would be to simply, (1) accept this hedonism as a given reality, and (2) get your message across anyway, any way you can. In my view, Americans have still not seen their overall quality of life deteriorate to the point where they feel the NECESSITY for activism (even in a minor way). That day will almost certainly come. Whether it will be too late when it does come is debatable, but in the meantime I don’t see any alternative but to keep trying to disseminate ideas about political and economic corruption as clearly and concisely as we can, without condescension, finger-pointing, or sermonizing.
“Repudiation” doesn’t quite do it for me. How about “Decapitation”?
When will you run Scott?
The speed of Scott Ritter political evolution took me of guard; what a distance from WMD inspector of 2002 to current Scott Ritter, who came to idea of impeachment of American people and repudiation of economic system which became as American as anything American can be!
Yet, he is not simply right, he is damned right! For American Civic Religion as codified in Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights is enduring DNA of American nation that either transcend current cancer or dies with it.
I, who advocated impeachment from the summer 2002 when Bush unveiled his doctrine of preventive war, now agree with Mr. Ritter: it is too late, and Bush is too insignificant a blip on the 60 years long (and may be longer) history of Empire, for impeachment to have real value domestically and much more importantly, international. Simply put, horse has already run out of barn.
Repudiation at least on the scale proposed by Scott Ritter (my personal opinion is that it is too modest) is the last hurdle for us to jump over while our fate is still in our hands. Failing to do so will inadvertently relinquish control over our fate into merciless hands of the rest of global community that has too much ill memory after our glory peaked at the height of the Cold War.
Let us hope that winter of discontent will turn into spring of great awakening. Let us also hope that it will be awakening of American Reason and not American base instincts.
We are no longer great, we think we are because it was so soon we really were.
The members of Congress no longer represent We The People.
They represent themselves, themselves because they are of the wealthy, does anyone in the media’s income have anything to a plumber or truck driver.
Those are the new elitists and their well paid media prostitutes,we are doomed.
Watch your favorite sports team or American Idol with your beer while they take over your country and PLEASE, don’t say God Bless America, I don’t think he blesses SHIT!
Secretary Bird,
You are not arguing for abolishing Monarchy, do you? It give a sense of protection against moronization on the scale we have in this part of globe. My past experience with radical departure from the past at the expense of high dogmatic principles taught me a lesson: be careful.
Glorious Revolutions as well as Inglorious Restorations happen after any REAL revolutions and revolutions never actually fade in spite of shameless efforts historians-on-pay to castrate History.
The US made a great travel from slave trading and slave owning Founding Fathers whose greatest legacy was creation of Cult of Reason without explicitly saying so. As a result, 230 years later people (at least on such progressive sites) are indignant with what the see now, while our French friends had two open Emperors and multitude of coup d’états before settling on rather good approximation of path to Socialism.
You may find it ironic, but I strongly believe that the USA is readier to Socialism than many other developed countries. I hope that we do not need WW3 to repeat FDR experiment.
I also hope that the Global Climate Change – the War for Planetary Survival - will have all urgency and all mandatory pressure for mobilization of all resources, first of all resources of intelligence, which human made wars cannot provide. I think that humanity is at edge of final realization of transiency of capitalistic experiment, which failed morally from the very beginning and now, when all externals are getting into account, will fail economically at the long last.
Ritter validates two concepts I’ve forwarded through CommonDreams’ discussion format: The Death Party and the Institution of Presidential Impunity. He is pleading we repudiate both without adjudicating them. I disagree; they deserve both repudiation and adjudication. Of course, the main part of the problem is that the vast majority of Congress are felons for repudiating their oath of office–again.
The how and why many US citizens support these concepts is provided by “Empire as a Way of Life” by William Appleman Williams and “Manufacturing Consent” by Chomsky and Herman.
Yes, the US Constitution needs ammending to weaken the executive and destroy the National Security State, but that will not occur while we have felons serving in Congress.
who among our potential prez candidates has repudiated “the unitary executive”? despite his utter incompetence, w. has shown a way the few will not also go thru.
It’s a great shame that there’s no mechanism for a “no confidence” vote.
Thank you, Scott Ritter. You have excellent insights. Impeachment will not solve the problem for all time. But it is the start that we need to make to begin to solve the problem. It is the action that the people understand. At this point in our history we have to make the bold gesture, the visible gesture, the gesture that will get the attention of the media and the people, who are so utterly distracted. Thank you for at least using the word Impeachment in your title. We see it so little, so at least using the word makes it part of the conversation. Thank you.
Beautifully said. But it’s not enough to read Mr Ritter’s essay and express our views and comments and then forget about it and read the next essay. What must people now (that’s me, you and the rest of us) do to rectify the situation? Should we now start reading or re-reading the Constitution and pick up some arms and head for Washington? Not really. There are lots of other things one can do both as a patriotic American and as a citizen of the world, some of which include:
Writing and calling the sponsors of undemocratic newspapers, magazines, and television stations, and informing them that you are boycotting the products they advertize. Writing and calling the Senate and House members expressing your deep dissatisfaction. Canceling your subscription to undemocratic news media expressing why you’re doing so. Stop buying the products advertised on undemocratic media. Stop your own consumerism.
I’m pretty sure you can come up with a lot more that you can do. If you do, please post it for the benefit of others. These actions may keep you busy for sometime. But just imagine what an impact it would create when thousands of us start doing it from tomorrow.
I will start doing it from tomorrow, will you? Are you determined enough or angry enough to join me in this personal action to uphold the Constitution? This is the least we can and should do in response to Mr Ritter.
Impeachment is repudiation and vindication or exoneration if you will. This sickness that is Bush needs a procedure that is medicine for the country and that tonic is impeachment. Repudiate them that are that does what is for the sanity of a nation I used to seemingly know so well. I don’t much recognize her anymore what with torture and fascist predilections not to mention the morally corrupt governance that passes for leadership. And I don’t give a damn about Clinton’s ridiculous spectacle of impeachment being so recent. You can’t ignore more wrongs because they are painful; if you want to live the way of your words you must accept the truth in order to move on. The harm the Bush administration has wrought upon the American face and the American conscience is yet to be tallied but the healing starts with the calling to account the many wrongs of our current leaders and the logical conclusion of that course of action is impeachment. Anything else is BS.
The mainstream media would have to cover impeachment and the investigations that require it. It’s an educational opportunity not to be missed. Americans would tune in. It should be done with much quoting of our founding documents to show how far we’ve veered off-course. Maybe I’m an optimist but I think many viewers (including the 40-50% that don’t vote) would have an “I could have had a V-8″ moment, set about educating and empowering themselves and the great conversation about America could begin.
Superb Scott! Wake up America! Turn off the TV! Get off the couch! Put down that beer! Use your brains! Participate! Stop consuming! Become involved!
I’m sick and tired of hearing of the MSM.
Who owns it, and why are you afraid to mention that fact, WIMPS!
That Clinton was impeached was actually correct; it was the reasons provided for his impeachment that made his conviction improbable. I agree that impeachment would serve as a “tonic” for the alienated bodypolitic and might possibly spark actual systemic change.
A Long Hot Summer must be created by We The People demanding impeachment. Repudiation will follow.
In addition, I must add this link, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17804.htm
I agree with most of the comments here, that repudiation is great but impeachment must be better if only because it is more immediate. I don’t think the US can survive the coming months with Bush. His destructiveness increases exponentially. But Clark Kent really said it best: “Repudiation doesn’t quite do it for me. How about “Decapitation.”
“The nefarious nature of the Bush cancer is that, in its infection of the American system, it seeks to draw legitimacy for its tyrannical actions by citing the very same Constitution it seeks to destroy.”
Seeking to destroy the Constitution would make one an “enemy” of said Constitution, yes? Our military takes an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC.” Yes?
Excuse me, Marine, but you just identified a gang of enemies of our Constitution. You took an oath. What’s the next move?
As I’ve stated numerous times before here, I agree with both ‘Clark Kent’ and Kathlyn. This whole band of criminals deserves the death penalty, if only to dissuade the NEXT band of criminals from being quite so obvious in their power mongering.
As Frank above states, both the military and Congress, and I can only presume the Secret Service, every FBI and CIA agent, have sworn to defend the Constitution against ALL ENEMIES, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
If they don’t arrest, impeach, indict, imprison and please dear god, IMPALE these tyrants, they are COMPLICIT. People are dying and our country is dying with them.
Damnitall, I’m getting to the point where I’m ready to go start throwing rocks at the white (now blood red) house and Congress.
The greatest sedition may be silence, but talking isn’t going to work either… and if the FBI comes to my door and asks me what I’m planning, my first question to them is going to be, “why aren’t YOU planning something!?”
A long read Scott and at times I felt like throwing myself under a truck but I have to hand it to you, the thought you have given this subject and shared here on this site has got me thinking.
Trouble in reading the constitution for me is it is over my head. It kind of reminds me of something crafted by plantation owner’s / lawyers at a time of our nation’s low-tec origins that ignored the complexity of 300 million multi-cultures clashing against the bravado of shared values. One can only wonder, has this document ever worked? I mean it is so totally abused and trashed by the very people elected to uphold it, it’s citizenry so oppressed they look to the retched likes of millionaire Nancy Pelosi or a weak piece of modeling clay called Harry Reed, for their repudiations, only to be clobbered again and again by the jack-boot (now minority) opposition that continues to hand them defeat after defeat. (I really don’t understand why nobody is calling for their resignations.) No Scott, most of us get it, we have just been contrived, coerced and bullied into a sort of funk that makes it so darn easy to press on with making enough money to exist in a country where we have lost 95% of our currencies purchasing power and listen to a government that swears inflation is under control? We probably don’t need to impeach the worst president ever seen, that would make 70% of Americans feel too wonderful.
Just so… except that when I call for the President to be impeached I mean exactly this.
Impeach the Presidency.
Not the President.
Impeach what the Presidency has become.
And of course the problem with that is that the Congress has allowed the Presidency to become what it is. It is implicated.
And so, to impeach the Presidency (indict what the Presidency has become) is to indict oneself… if one is a Congressman.
But yes, the problem is much deeper and more structural in nature than the President.
I think we have our answer already to the question of “whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. …”
In the face of the power of capital (money) the answer is pretty clear. No it cannot.
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the U.S., shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, TREASON, BRIBERY, or other HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS.” U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section IV.
Next in line would be the Vice President, who is pretty much the brains behind the puppethead. I must conclude that our Congresspersons do not have adquate PROOF to convict Mr. Bush or his puppetmaster of any high crime. Like any other court trial, there must be adequate evidence to convict. Heresay doesn’t get the job done.
That said, if repudiation (for which Mr. Ritter provided these definitions: ‘rejecting as having no authority or binding force…) is the next best way to send Mr. Bush packing, or technically, render him powerless, then I say REPUDIATE him. And Cheney.
We, the people, need to take back our country. Stand up and shout: I’ve had it up to here and I’m not going to take it anymore!!!
Say, maybe we could just send them to Gitmo and interrogate them until they break.
Yeah … everything you said.
Now can we give them a fair trial and hang them?
I hope we all realize that Ritter is also holding the mirror up to each of us. As citizens, it’s our duty to act - beyond CommonDreams. If we must repudiate the fascist takeover of this country, then WE must do it. If we won’t or can’t do it, the notion of democracy is already dead.
While Ritter doesn’t call for a full-scale revolution (for good reason), Jefferson knew that it may well come to that.
Repudiation, impeachment, prosecution, revolution. Let’s work the steps - but let’s do it!
The nom de plume of one of the responders actually got my hopes up. Nietzsche (and other responders)… check out “Ecce Homo.” There you might find the actual origins of Scott Ritter’s argument. Once you have read it, everything else falls into place. Since it seems like many of us are in the same camp, we need to stop writing on Commondreams.org, Antiwar.com and GO TO the mainstream media and write these same messages REPEATEDLY. It is like the Pavlovian experiment: once you repeat it over and over, people might begin to believe it. Granted the Constitution might be over their heads, but if we quote parts of it, they might be impressed, thinking we are intelligent and want to hear more. Remember, easy phrases. Keep it simple. And certainly do not be reluctant to sprinkle in words like “impeachment” and “repudiation.” Forget writing to Congress, they are a bunch of do-nothings. This demands getting your hands dirty, going door to door, and not be afraid of having objects thrown at you. Like Scott, I am not advocating violence, but it is time to take our country back. Being informed is the first part of the process.
Right on Scott. Although I would love to see Bush impeached, you make it clear that the problem runs much deeper. The system is broken, and as much as it hurts to admit it, George Bush and his neo-con cronies offer us a gift. They serve to reveal how screwed up we are and how much we’ve given away.
We little people are the heart and soul of this broken system, and I guess any real healing must begin with us. Are we able to quit focusing on Bush as the big rotten apple whose removal will solve all our problems and begin to see the bigger picture of what needs to change? I hope we are up to it!
Repudiation yes, “to cast off” to the dust bins of history. What is it that we are casting off? What is this “cancer”? Can a problem ever be solved if it is set up incorrectly. Do we live in a purely subjective world? Is not the political set up and supported by the economic base? Who is getting rich and healthy from “Bushes cancer”? I think the equation is set up incorrectly. The solution, to rid the world of “Bushes cancer”, will not cure the patient, as the root cause of this “cancer”, has not been repudiated.
Mr. Ritter quotes Jefferson as saying, “Bad men will sometimes get in and with such an immense patronage may make great progress in corrupting the public mind and principles,” so it’s too bad we have to depend on the character of those who get in. He’s right, of course, as the current bunch of “public servants” clearly demonstrate. But Jefferson could not know that citizens of this great republic would not only have to deal with elected government officials corrupting our minds and principles, but also global corporate elitists, money changers, and the mega media. If it was only Cheney/Bush and the Congress, I think we’d have a fighting chance.
after reading this piece of propaganda, this supposedly journalist has been bought and paid for by the bush administration’s propaganda department. Impeachment hell! Him and his nazi thugs should all be hung from the capital building with most of his republican cultists…and most of the so called democrats. this country has gone to hell in a hand basket. but the american people deserve it. they put the jerk and his thugs in office. and look at the supreme court. they are as corrupt as the bush administration and what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. the whole world is laughing at us. or spitting on us. take your pick.
Good commentary.
We are in the middle of a tremendous crisis.
The Administration is completely out of control, the Democrats cowardly and ineffective, the Congress as a whole insane on military spending.
It looks like the Admin will push for 200,000 troops in Iraq by Christmas.
Impeach now! Build the movement!
While I agree almost entirely with Mr. Ritter, I am somewhat dismayingly reminded of Lewis Lapham whom I asked for advice concerning repudation. Aside from ‘getting the word out’ he could give none!
So, Mr. Ritter, just how does one repudiate? How many letters to Congressmen, the judiciary, the Executive are necessary? How does one exert pressure or influence on our elected representatives aside from the vote (which itself cannot now be counted upon)? Should we march on Washington, on the local offices of our representatives? What exactly should we be doing to effect this vaunted ‘repudiation’?
How about some SPECIFIC advice!
In Montana, some of us activists who see the appalling US governance crisis (and who failed recently to get the larger MT public to support the impeachment ’cause’), are trying to now focus on a fallback plan we hope might slow the slide toward tyranny.
No matter all the seeming Catch-22’s we activists face (viz, millions of zombied-out citizens/corrupted/collusive mainstream newsmedia/largely-craven congress, etc.)
Almost any plan of action, now, is better than the alternative: just sitting-by, largely verbally-venting and anguishing as America and its last-chance Constitution get further (likely, fatally) unravelled by the ghastly gaggle of anti-Enlightenment ghouls that Bush/Cheney have sorcered-up from the dead & discredited crypts of history (Forgive MY venting, here: I figure it’s allowed if it leads to useful action… ) .
It seems that, for the duration of Bush’s term, most citizens will remain “afraid” of openly suppporting impeachment; BUT, increasing #’s of energize-able voters do see Bush/Cheney as having duped them, and as being dishonest/incompetent leaders who’re screwing up the country and their lives.
Some in-depth Zogby polls consistently show there’s wide public support for Congressional hearings, if they’re centered around non-impeachment-oriented investigations of Executive failures & abuses.
Such hearings, if ever gotten off the ground with a bang, would at least stand a chance of revealing, to a nationwide audience, what governance covenants have been broken by Bush/Cheney, and what needs institutional fixing/restoration within our constitutional system (obviously,the deeper illnesss of US society-in-general would remain as it is, -but w/o a repaired governance covenant,it’s hard to see how anything else could get improved…)
The daunting challenge to this desperate, little plan then becomes: How do we activists re-activate just enough additional citizens as might be required to pressure enough reformist & new members of congress to in-turn demand that their status-quo congressional seniors get out of the way, and allow such high-profile investigative hearings to get underway?
Sounds embarassingly naive; maybe. But some of us progressives in MT intend to try just this kind of citizen re-focus effort, thence to be directed to MT’s newly elected US Senator, Jon Tester, who’s now clearly wobbling on his once-strong 2006 campaign stand against the Iraq War. If this approach has any viability, we’el soon find out.
Parallel to my participation in this political effort, I’ll also continue shopping-around for residency on an alternate planet, much as I’d miss beautiful Montana, if some sympathetic aliens were kind enough to take me with them.
I think that the American people must do everything in their power to try to impeach Bush and Cheney, and even if it fails or ‘is not feasible’ as so many say, never stop fighting for this issue.
But I agree with Scott that there has to be done more even after Bush leaves office.
Chroestsjov, after taking over the lead of the Soviet Union after Stalin’s death, declared Stalin a ‘non-person’ in the Doema. I think that is also a valid thing for Bush. This would mean that the next president who is elected in 2008 is going to be the 43rd president of the United States, Bush being a non-person.
After Clinton took power, people were asking him what to do with the prosecution of officials engaged in criminal activities like the Iran-Contra affair. Clinton said he would not prosecute and he could easily forgive the Repugs, because he still had to ‘collaborate’ with the Republicans in Congress.
Americans must not accept these lame excuses this time. Anyone who is prepared to ‘collaborate’ with people who ‘collaborated’ with the Bush regime, is not worthy of support. Stay focused, even after Bush is gone.
It’s great to read something like this, these days.
Repudiation is easy; getting those who are empowered to act upon this conviction (Congress) by passing legislation reflecting our collective repudiation of the Bush presidency, the unitary executive, etc. is not.
To go, as Mr. Ritter does, back to the basics we have to have the courage to allow ourselves to see the truth about our government’s ability, given it’s current level of corruption, to right itself.
Do we have enough faith in what still does work for it to be able to repair the rest?
Do we have enough patience to endure the wait for this to happen?
Can we afford such patience, as this timely process of correction comes with the expense of neglecting other sorely needed social legislation?
secretarybird, you raised a very valid point.
The Constitution has reached a mythic, almost holy veneration in American lore.
Even the founding fathers didn’t regard their own document with such reverential awe as far too many people do today. They recognized that theirs was not an etched-in-stone, sacrosanct work that must never change. This is why they included Article Five, which is why I’m surprised that Ritter didn’t say anything about it.
Article Five is the vehicle for the kind of “repudiation” Ritter calls for and what our country desperately needs; a constitutional convention. It is not a quick fix but we don’t have to rely on Congress to pursue it… and it is as much a part of the Constitution as Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution, which the House of Representatives must at least pursue, as is their duty, now! If they refuse, then we fire the bastards in 2008 like we did in 2006.
A great campaign slogan for anyone running against a do-nothing incumbent would be “[incumbent’s name] IS OFF THE TABLE!”
Some will likely say that voting is futile; that this will only replace one bad set politicians with another; and it isn’t immediate enough.
Perhaps, but at least the new set would be put on notice they are not guaranteed job security because we’re paying attention and are no longer complacent. This is another method of repudiation.
As far as it not being immediate enough, we didn’t get into this mess in just a few months or even a few short years. It’s going to take time, which is running out and every day we delay our participation - no matter how small it may seem to us - is another day lost.
Here’s an interesting website about Article 5:
http://www.article5.com/
And it’s companion:
http://www.article5.org/
Scott,
Not impeaching Bush because the “collective” has failed is, well, strange. This is rather a neat way to escape personal responsibility, both for yourself and for Bush. Or, your argument that in impeaching Bush we will simply replace one tyrant with another because the collective (whatever that is)has failed so we might as well not impeach Bush; this is quite an odd way to view responsibility, individual or collective.
In exempting Bush in this manner, you have–should I say it?–increased the malaise of the collective and you have given yourself and Bush a pass. I guess we are to wait around while this huge beast called the “collective” morphs into something called vibrant democracy and then we can impeach Bush?
Change, justice, responsibility are seldom, if ever, a result of the “will of the people” or the “collective”. Revolution, including ours, was never popular. The “collective” never supported it, it was not the “will of the people”. It was a small group of people that had ants in their pants about idependence, freedom, pursuit of happiness, etc. So, let’s act. Let’s work to get him out, even if it’s jousting with windmills. It at least feels good and who knows, maybe it will give pause to the tyrant that replaces him. And, in the final analysis, is repudiation really better, easier, more likely, or whatever than impeachment? Neither will ever have the support of the collective or the will of the people but let’s make a statement, let’s act as if we can succeed in impeaching AND removing him from office. I’m with Dennis on this one. Let’s exercise the Constitution, it needs it.
I concur that much needs to be re-evaluated given the current times. For example, an honest question is:
Is the federal executive branch still of value for we the People?
Obviously the checks & balances envisioned by the founders are way out of whack.
Peace,
Ken
I support HR333 - Impeach the VP (the big “D”)
In the longer term repudiation sounds like a wonderful but, in the context of how America works, completely untrealistic approach. It certainly feels good - but what does it mean in practical terms? How will it stop the bloodbath in Iraq and further polarization of the world?
As to impeachment not being a good course before repudiation has been tried, sorry, Scott, you lost me. Repudiation will have no effect on Bush - he will ignore it because it will have no practical effect on him or what he does/can do unless it results in massive civil disobedience.
In any event, repudiation involves some education of people in something which will take several generations to become part of their political methodology - if it happens at all. A bit like the fact that forcing the Iraqis to hold elections will not teach them something that they need several generations to accept as part of their culture - American style democracy.
Sure, impeachment will not, of itself, solve the problem inherent in US politics but it is a very strong tool to help fix it - the stick as it were.
Indeed, a failure to use it against Bush in favour of either vague concept such as repudiation or creating legislation that its makers know will be ineffective because President Bush will veto it will only embolden him and future incumbents to behave with complete inpunity because they know that Congress does not have the moral fibre to take meaningful action.
One other thought:
I have been trying to come up with some simple non-confrontational means of communicating dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. Here are a few ideas.
1. Have a “do not use the phone” day. Those who participate would take phones off the hook and turn off cell phones. (This could also be a “do not turn on the TV” day). It would be a great day to take a walk in the neighborhood and appreciate nature.
2. Have a “do not use the credit card” day (or maybe it should be for a week or even a month). This might also be a good time to withdraw some good ole greenery from the bank account. You know, cash for a rainy day kind of thing.
3. Dare I say have a “do not go to work” day. I’m not sure about this one, but if it happened on a wide scale it would get some attention.
4. Find some prominent respected individuals with a broad range of perspectives and have some sort of structured debate regarding “the state of the union”. Obviously the value of this would be directly proportional to the media coverage it receives.
5. ??????
I’m sure I could come up with some more, and I’m sure others out there could come up with some excellent ideas. The objective would be to find something that resonates with people and sends a clear message to our so-called leaders that sensible folks are fed up, and those in vested positions of authority better shape up.
I know I feel passionately about this and I find it comforting that many at Common Dreams seem to feel likewise. As I have been saying for a few months now: It could be so much better, but time is of the essence.
Peace,
Ken
I support HR333 - Impeach the VP
impeachment/removal shall be a symbol of change, that the people, recognizing they’ve been steered down a wrongful path, forced that necessary change of course that was not otherwise forthcoming, to head once again toward an honorable future… a powerful symbol to the world; necessary
Scott Ritter is a true patriot, but I disagree with him, as he himself does. He writes, “The nefarious nature of the Bush cancer is that, in its infection of the American system, it seeks to draw legitimacy for its tyrannical actions by citing the very same Constitution it seeks to destroy. The promoters of this point of view cite the academic term “Unitary Executive Theory” when defining their philosophy. To me, it is nothing less than treason.”
Treason. To my mind, the most effective way to repudiate Bush et al. (to include those in Congress who’ve abrogated their constitutional mandate) is to impeach, because impeachment smooths the path to international war crimes trials. Raising the stakes to this level will cause Jefferson’s “bad men” of the future to contemplate closely Bush et al.’s folly.
Meanwhile, the impeachment process and subsequent trials will educate us apathetic Americans, which is the only method I can conceive of for getting us away from our collective consumerism. We need a made-for-realty-TV drama that will point us in the direction toward our founding fathers’ promised land.
From the article5.org site: “18 U.S.C. 1918, violation of oath of office by federal officials. The penalty for such violation is one year in prison and removal from office”
I believe that the “defend and protect the constitution” excerpt from the oath of office is enough to impeach on these grounds.
I know it will never happen, but if impeachment was brought forth as simply as this, the entire administration and many, many members of the legislative and judicial branches could be impeached by singling out a few of the bills and judicial decisions that have so desecrated the Constitution, and going down the list of who voted for or against. THAT would be pretty good start towards repudiation. I know it’s too much, it’ll never happen. But it SHOULD.
I don’t think we will ever be a whole country again if we don’t regain some of our self-respect by impeaching the jerk! If for no other reason it will send future Presidents a message that we are going to be watching what they do! There is punishment for people who cross the line into lawlessness! There are to many people like myself who are geniunely ashamed to call themselves an American these days! Who are ashamed of what this country has sunk to (little more than another Banana Republic run by corrupt government official’s who are robbing us blind and everyone but the rich is suffering). These people (Bush and company) have so twisted and distorted the Constitution it no longer resembles the document most of us were raised to respect. I can understand what the author is talking about though! To many American’s view of democracy has become as warped and corrupt as the people who are running the government. And it isn’t going to be easy to change them. They are going to fight and resist being forced back into the bottle by a fed up population. But, I see it as something that needs to be tried even if it doesn’t solve the problem right now. Those people need to be reminded what they are advocating for this country is wrong! It is not in keeping with what our forefather’s intended. They have been blown so far off coarse by a corrupt administration that they need to be brought back into the light of reality! Like my husband always says when I talk about impeaching the b…..! There isn’t anything better waiting in the wings. But, as far as I can see Nancy Pelosi is far better than what’s there. All government official’s need to be made to understand that some of us American’s are fed up with government corruption! If they insist on abusing the system they will be proscuted to the full extent of the law. If we aren’t a nation of law’s, then what are we????????
What does the Constitution say about making billions of dollars, waging a war to secure the multinational corporations ability to make more billions in profit.
Maybe we can ask them nicely to wage war for cost, if they truly believe in spreading our “democracy”, law system, values, and Constitution throughout the world.
Bush’s predecessor, King George III, was not impeached but was declared mentally incapacitated, which he most definitely was.
Bush IV was reported to beat his chest crying that “I am a President”, which display childish behavior. At his age such a behavior would be rendered psychopathic by any independent council of psychiatrists.
Do we need to wait for postmortem diagnosis?
He also said that his goal in Iraq is to make it impossible for his successor to withdraw from Iraq.
We have chosen in our ignorance and lust for comfort to be the lobster in the warm water of instant gratification. We are almost beyond redemption, but we’re saying Ahhh, don’t change anything, this feels GREAT!
Osama bin Laden must be laughing uproariously now that Bush and his cabal have swallowed his bait hook, line, and sinker and are busily destroying the people and Constitution of the United States. Perhaps a Parliamentary system may have prevented such abuse; Bush, after all, would have had to account for his actions weekly if not daily personally to Members of Parliament. And the Brits did not have to wait for an end of a term to see the backside of Poodle Blair.
Here you go…this will help..
www.impeachbush.org
Is the problem that the American “Mass Man” is ignorant of the US Constitution, or that he/she is tired of a leadership that he/she considers elitist and wants to rule directly according to his/her anti-democratic narrow-minded values through a demagogue that is a lightening rod for his/her bigotted world views?
This is the mindset of the European “Mass Man” described by Jose Ortega y Gasset in his book “The Revolt of the Masses” written in the 1920s during the rise of fascism in Europe.
well i agree with those who say why should vague repudiation stop us from trying specific impeachment? let impeachment be the first solid step toward a deeper repudiation.
i doubt that osama bin laden was waiting for US democracy to implode. he is waiting for US military and economic power to implode so that the US stops exploiting arabs.
We live in an occupied nation. Unlike the occupation of Paris during World War II, many of those who occupy our executive, legislative, and judicial offices are not invading Nazis, but people who call themselves Americans even though they no longer deserve the honor of the name.
Fear, apathy, complacency, and daily distractions (bread as well as the mass media’s many cynical circuses) all contribute to Americans’ silence. However, many who have witnessed the method of the nation’s destruction change from gradual erosion to accelerated corrosion remain in a prolonged state of shock minus the awe. Such shock lacks denial: like the American Jews who heard early reports of Nazi genocide, shocked Americans do not say “I do not believe it,” but “I do not WANT to believe it.” We all know that our individual, biological lives will end, but cannot accept the potential death of our country: if this is what we have become, why did we fight WWII? March during the civil-rights era? Protest the WTO at the 1999 “battle in Seattle?” As a nation we can (and perhaps must) lose the false promises of the “American Dream,” but not the partially-fulfilled dream named America that hovers above us in a state of suspended animation.
Impeachment is not a cure for America’s current problems. However, it is nonetheless the best (if not the only) place to begin reclaiming our country. It is up to those of us who support it to demand it. If the U.S. House of Representatives will not comply with our wishes, we as citizens must impeach Bush and Cheney ourselves.
America lacks legal precedent for impeachment by its citizens. Yet we once lacked legal precedent for other “impossible” acts, such as women’s suffrage and school desegregation. Therefore, I propose the following plan of action:
1.) We call, fax, or e-mail our U.S. representatives (and Nancy Pelosi) weekly. We explain our demand that impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney begin by July 4, 2007, and that we speak not only for ourselves, but also for those who are silent/silenced for any other reasons, including American soldiers who have been killed in combat during the Bush administration and the Guantanamo prisoners.
2.) If impeachment proceedings are not underway by July 4, 2007, we set a date in early August to gather at state capitols across the country and encourage our state governments to do what the U.S. House of Representatives lacks the courage to do.
3.) If impeachment proceedings are not underway by early September, we travel to Washington and peacefully surround the White House and U.S. Capitol. We do not leave until articles of impeachment are introduced, or Bush and Cheney both submit resignation statements. Though we may be tempted to strip Bush and Cheney of U.S. citizenship and sentence them to permanent exile, in the real America they (like everyone else) deserve a fair trial.
Bush and Cheney are a crisis. Once the crisis is no longer in power, we can begin to rebuild America with human rights and civil liberties at its foundation: without these, any nation, regardless of its economic system, is doomed to eventual failure.
For now Liberty and Justice wait, their cracks, chips, and broken limbs covered by the fig leaf of a tattered flag.
Scott Ritter’s list of repudiations is incomplete.
Corporate personhood is a key link in the system of abuses he so rightly condemns. It’s a concept with a shaky legal foundation.
So — Repudiate corporate personhood.
And let’s impeach, too.
I still believe Bush and Cheney should be impeached and convicted. Then they should be deported….to Iraq. The people there will show them how much they appreciate all that Bush and Cheney have done for their country.
Gershoms Horse: good plan and viable time line. I could do it… others?
Kant writes: “Apathy is the mother of Chaos.”
If Apathy is the mother of Chaos, then it’s father must be Corruption.
What kind of Bastard of destruction will the US spawn?
I could, and would do it.
Siouxrose,
I have been doing it, and in fact I just recieved a response e-mail from my representative (Sue Myrick). Here is some of her response:
“As you know, under our constitution the Vice President may be impeached if it is shown that he has committed “high crimes or misdemeanors.” Based upon my information to date, nothing the Vice President has done would meet this constitutional basis for impeachment.”
She did go on to say:
“However, Representative Kucinich has recently introduced a bill, H.Res.333, that brings several articles for impeachment against Vice President Cheney. This bill is currently being considered in the House Judiciary Committee. I will be sure to keep your views in mind should this or any other relevant legislation come to House floor for a vote.”
I appreciate her response even though I vehemently disagree with the first paragraph. Perhaps I need to send her another note listing the ways the VP has committed so many offenses.
I have yet to hear from Speaker Pelosi (who I am so disappointed with) or my Senator Elizabeth Dole, both of whom I have also had correspondance with. I “wished” wisdom upon these two ladies, but wishing for something doesn’t make it so (sorry disney, but lets get real).
Regardless, I agree with Gershoms Horse and others who have encouraged folks to communicate with their representatives. Theoretically this is how it is supposed to work. My concern is that there is a real disconnect in congress, checks and balances are “out of whack”, and so much seems to be happening behind the scenes that is being concealed from the People.
It seems to me that many individuals are “waking up”, and recognize for the sake of the People substantive changes must be made and must be made soon. This is why it is all the more frustrating that those individuals in vested positions of authority are either willfully or foolishly in a state of denial about the “state of the union” & the “state of ecological balance”. Something is going to give. I’d rather we all be aware and progressive in action than back on our heels in a constant state of crisis, but each day (literally) that transpires with “business as usual”, makes the latter more likely.
Nonetheless, if September arrives and our so-called leaders continue to defy common sense, then count me in for a peaceful protest in DC.
Peace,
Ken
* I support HRes333 - Impeach the VP
* Hope, then Remedy, then Peace, then the sky is the limit…..
* Time is of the essence
You know what I was just thinking.
If there is going to be a protest in DC in September. I think I am going to walk there from my hometown (Charlotte, NC). I think I would need to start sometime in August.
Hm.
Ken,
* I support HRes333 - Impeach the VP
* Hope, then Remedy, then Peace, then better times….
********** Time is of the essence *********
Excellent and accurate article: Calling actually for a military trial of the present “Commander and Chief.”
Looks to me like Scott Ritter thinks that Bush should be tried in military court. Perhaps, I’m jumping to conclusions.
Clearly, now we no longer have an active Congress, and the people have become as he points out victims of “Bread and Circus” corruption, paid off and fed on slop and cheap entertainment as the Roman citizens during the reign of the emporers. And what remains are three active branches of government.
1. The people who follow their masters dictates.
2. The military, large parts of which are private contractors, mercenaries, professional sycophants and secret police.
3. The Presidency, Bush Cheney, and the secret police that help them gather information and enforce secrecy and shut down dissent at home and abroad, and in the non functioning congress and judiciary appendages of the Bush Cheney imperium.
Ritter is urging Americans to end that Imperium (Bush Cheney Unilaterally appointed Imperium) abruptly, as far as I can interpret this document. And, interestingly he points out that if Americans will not reclaim their correct role in world affairs as a lawful nation, bent on constructive growth, then the US will become the single most hated force in the world, since it is the most powerful single force.
Collectively viewed the US is not nearly so powerful, and like Hitler’s Germany, to which it is increasingly being compared, it will not be able to continue to defy international consensus, common standards of human law, such as the sanctity of human life and property.
Things do seem to be coming to an impasse.
According to Ritter, Bush’s Imperium must be repudiated by Americans just as Stalin’s tyranny was repudiated by Russia, and as Hitler’s has been repudiated by Germany in order for the US to continue to conduct successful world policy and prosper domestically.
What Ritter should do next is to create military computerized simulations of some of the catastrophes that will hit the US in the near future, if Bush’s presidency is not repudiated very soon, as he recommends.
Challenging article.
I think Americans understand what Ritter is saying. What they don’t get is that the tiered system of US education and economics is creating a slave underclass, willing to support a tyrant. Beyond that, new forms of military recruiting make it easier and easier for the executive to build a private army to back up dictatorship. Add the bogus “Department of Homeland Security” and the 100s of billions that are sent its way to be used to create more presidential secret police workers…
Sadly enough,all I see here,is a lot of talk.Talk rather than action,is what has brought us to this point.ACTION should have been taken months ago.We gave the Democrats a solid mandate and am sorely disappointed in Pelosi and the entire House of Reps,the Senate,for their inactions.The GOP saw fit to impeach A fine president simply because they didn’t like him,simply because he managed to get a BJ in the Oval Office.
Mr.Bush has committed horrid crimes against humanity,horrid crimes against America,horrid crimes against the American people as a whole,crimes against all those who were once our stoic allies worldwide,horrid crimes against all of the Iraqi people.Has turned the Whitehouse into a severe dictatorship ruled by a tyrant.Committed a crime when not completing his obligation to the American system when he dodged his committment to service in the Guard,thanks to the endless power of the Bush Railroad,which,subsequently subverted,corrupted the American system of VOTING.We are all deadly wrong to date for not having Impeached Bush,Cheney,Rice and the entire cabinet as it stands today.Talk,talk,talk,get OFF our collective butts,enough talk.IMPEACH NOW while there is still some chance to save our wonderful country and all it USED to stand for.Clean out the entire Whitehouse,allow our Senate and House to run this country until a proper election can be instituted.The time is now.It is utterly shameful,disgusting,the way those we elected to take control have let us down,capitulated to a rogue dictator repeatedly.I agree only with one thing I’ve heard said here,send Bush to Iraq,let the Iraqi people show him what they think of his devastation of their country,his seizing of their OIL.Nuff said,let’s just get it done and begin to pick up the pieces.
I agree, whole-heartedly, with the idea that United States citizens should take an active role in checking and “repudiating” government gone wrong and, had I the qualifications for discerning and authority to organize a movement that would ensure a viable repudiation of our governmental system, I’d gladly and readily take action.
I don’t.
Those who are in a position to financially support that enormous and convoluted endeavor would likely be the ones who would side with the money- and power-oriented system of government that we’ve had thus far.
I am among the poor, very poor, citizenry who stands by watching the decadence of what once was a well-thought-out form of democracy and constitutional system of governance, and unable to take that meaningful step to enact whatever’s necessary to start the ball rolling.
It must sound fatalistic and self-defeating, but it’s reality. I can’t see a way in which I can, effectively, instigate repudiation or impeachment. I simply don’t have the resources.
My highest commendations on a well-written viewpoint, to be sure. If only people with connections and money were to feel as strongly as you on these points, Mr Bush and all those carbon copy deviants from constitutional law would be more likely to become the last regrettable factions of our embarrassing past.
-Marc