Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

It would be instructive to conduct a dialogue by responding to points being raised against pursuing impeachment actions against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.  These points need to be addressed and responded to as a means of emphasizing the immediate necessity of impeachment.

1)  Wait a second!  We know that Bush and Cheney have done a miserable job and the country will be so much better off when they leave, but, as the saying goes, "You don't throw out the baby with the bath water."  Impeachment is the wrong course because it would be a political mistake.  We do not have the votes in Congress to win and force a trial in the Senate.  Heck, we could not hope to muster 218 votes!

This pragmatic argument that Democrats could not hope to muster the 218 necessary votes to impeach Bush and generate a Senate trial in the manner that this occurred with Bill Clinton deserves two responses.

The first response is the critical one that renders all other debate superfluous.  Those of you in Congress raising a pragmatic political argument against impeachment should recognize that this is irrelevant.  Under the U.S. Constitution you have an obligation under the oath you took when you assumed office that mandates that you to preserve and defend that precious document.

Impeachment was put into the Constitution as a protection against defilers who violate it and commit high crimes and misdemeanors.  Alexander Hamilton defined the meaning of impeachment in Federalist Paper Number 65.  Hamilton's words carry an eerie ring as related to present political circumstances:

"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in government wholly elective.  The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.  They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be dominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.  The prosecution of them, for that reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly to the accused.  In many cases it will connect itself with the preexisting factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."

Hamilton wisely defines impeachment as well as the political dangers surrounding it.  How true those words concerning strength of parties circumventing "the real demonstration of innocence or guilt."  

The type of action resulting from political action that was thoroughly unwarranted was that spirited through by a Republican contingent of ultimately self-admitted marital philanderers consisting of Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde and Robert Livingston.  

These hypocritical philanderers led the fight to impeach and remove from office a president for lying about an extra marital affair with a White House intern on an affidavit in a civil case.

Henry Reid in the aforementioned NPR interview sought to dismiss a possible impeachment action against Bush by linking it to the trial of impeachment against Clinton, mentioning his no vote and seemingly contending that such an action against the current occupant of the White House would be foolish and unproductive.

Senator Reid, in the first instance, pertaining to Clinton, an extra marital affair fails to fall within the constitutional standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors" relating to impeachment.  An act of censure was far more appropriate, as even Clinton himself acknowledged.  

In the cases of Bush and Cheney their conduct falls clearly within the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors."  When Iraq was invaded the U.S. Constitution was violated.  

Under international law as applied as an outgrowth of the Nuremberg Trials and established in large measure due to U.S. sponsorship, it is illegal to attack a sovereign nation unless there is a clear and present danger that a country will be attacked.

The self-defense proviso was non-applicable in the case of Iraq and an attack that followed a full scale propaganda campaign to convince Americans that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, someone the United States assisted in placing in power through the auspices of the CIA and later helped arm, possessed weapons of mass destruction.  

The American attack occurred hastily to prevent a UN weapons inspection team from reaching the conclusion that ultimately came to pass through further investigation, that no such weapons existed.

The propaganda effort was extended to the point of Cheney visiting the CIA and pressuring Middle East hands to assume the administration's position of a clear and present danger of attack.

The Bush-Cheney agenda from the time that they assumed office was to wage war against Iraq, as manifested by statements from administration officials.  

Included within this strategy was a successful effort to pressure veteran State Department Middle East operatives who would not corroborate the position of Iraq's weapons proclivities to resign.  They were replaced by administration figure heads to advance the Bush-Cheney line.

Secretary of State Colin Powell's address to the United Nations warning about Iraq's possession of nuclear weapons contained numerous misrepresentations of fact that could have been easily discovered by reasonable investigation and analysis.  

In addition to quoting from a graduate thesis from a British college student and twisting its conclusions to serve its interests, resulting in a denunciation from the paper's author, who opposed attacking Iraq, there was also the allegation that was made in a Bush State of the Union Address to Congress that Saddam Hussein had sought to enhance his nuclear weapon Uranium enrichment process through acquiring yellow cake from the nation of Niger.

The totally false claim regarding the seeking of yellow cake was also easily refutable through reasonable investigation and analysis.  In fact, when former ambassador Joseph Wilson investigated this allegation and made his information public a flurry of activity was set into motion that could arguably constitute an impeachable offense in its own right.

White House political operative Karl Rove, whose self-proclaimed idol is Richard Nixon, used a Nixonian tactic of seeking to destroy a political enemy by retaliating against Wilson for interfering with plans to attack Iraq by releasing the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame, who was involved in nuclear weapons investigation for the Central Intelligence Agency.

The act of outing a CIA agent, which was done through revealing Plame's name in a column by right wing journalist Robert Novak, could be said to constitute more than an act of impeachment.  It embodies an act of treason as well.

An important accompanying element of this outing could involve the research into which Plame and the team with which she was involved, operating under the cover of Brewster-Jennings and Associates, which has been said to include investigating the nuclear activities of Iran.  It was also allegedly investigating activities of Saudi Arabia.

The mention of Iran and Saudi Arabia sends up twin red flags.  In the case of Iran the Bush-Cheney team went so far as to foster a Senate resolution sponsored by arch neoconservatives Joseph Lieberman and Jon Kyl designating Iran as a terrorist nation.  

The purpose of the resolution was to build a case for war against Iran in the manner of the unceasing propaganda effort prior to the Iraq War.  Could the work product of the Brewster-Jennings group relating to Iran's actual nuclear status have been a factor in the outing of Valerie Plame?

The issue of Iran must also be examined closely with the recent disclosure by the National Intelligence Estimate of what Iran's actual nuclear potential constituted, and how Cheney and Bush persisted in making a case for war against that nation in a comparable way to what it had done prior to the Iraq War.  

What did Bush and Cheney know and when did they know it?  By studying the Bush-Cheney conduct in making the case for war against Iran have other potential grounds for impeachment arisen?

Despite the Bush administration's frequently stated objective of fighting world terrorism it is notable that Saudi Arabia has been exempted from any condemnation or enforcement efforts despite the fact that the oil rich nation has been designated as one of the world's leading exporters of international terrorism.  

Could some of Brewster-Jennings' efforts prove embarrassing or worse to Bushco or Dick Cheney's multi-national corporation Halliburton, which has close economic ties to Aramco as well?

Could Bush have perpetrated an obstruction of justice when he pardoned the lone individual tried and convicted for his role in the Plame outing, Cheney's former top aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby?  This act effectively silenced any efforts that might well have arisen had Libby been feeling the pressure of jail time to reveal the activities of other leading administration figures, including Bush and Cheney.

Along with the foregoing potential grounds for impeachment there is the war that has been waged by the Bush administration against the Bill of Rights.  Bush has effectively destroyed the oldest pre-trial protective legal safeguard in the world extending back to Britain's Magna Carta, that of habeas corpus.  

Using 9/11 and the Patriot Act as pretexts, under Bush a defendant can be arrested and held indefinitely without trial, putting the U.S. in the same category as dictatorships by invoking preventive detention.

The time-honored Bill of Rights concept of a home being an individual's castle has been eviscerated by the Bush administration's elimination of the search warrant as a viable part of what had been previously thought of rock solid American common law as evolved from the British system.  Bush subordinates now readily invade privacy without recourse, once again using 9/11 and the Patriot Act as legal linchpins.  

Do we need to invade a person's home?  No problem.  If we find something there that we wish to confiscate, no problem.  If we want to know what books any citizen is reading, no problem, we find out.  

Do we want to check out a person's e-mails on the Internet?  Again, we can do so, no problem.  Big Brother is here under the guise of protecting freedom and liberty by fighting terrorism, using the Patriot Act as a glorious precedent.

Bush's reckless trampling of the Bill of Rights provides grounds for impeachment.

There is also the callous disregard of international law with the conduct of detainees held at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay detention centers.  The use of waterboarding and rampant humiliation of prisoners, frequently tortured by privatized guards unallied to the American armed services, is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, which constitute the core of humanitarian law.

Once more Bush has sought to use the tragedies of 9/11 along with the Patriot Act that was passed in the wake of those events to justify actions that are inimical to not only the Geneva Conventions but flout rules of human decency and sensibility.  These violations should be thoroughly investigated to determine where a potential article or articles of impeachment might lie.

So the answer to the question of how impeachment hearings might impact on the national political scene should be no consideration at all.  The objective is to save the Constitution and uphold the rule of law by finally subjecting Bush and Cheney to ultimate scrutiny and seeing that they are finally held accountable for the assorted tragedies foreign and domestic that their ruthless actions have unleashed.  

There is no other choice if members of Congress wish to follow the Constitution.  The national interest supersedes all other consideration.  That is served by protecting and preserving the Constitution from further assault, meaning impeachment hearings forthwith.

Then there is the argument that Congressman Conyers recently made that the Democrats would not ultimately be able to summon the necessary 218 votes to subject Bush and presumably Cheney as well to a Senate trial.  

Do you believe that a public that has never been more favorably inclined toward impeachment, the same public that has given Bush the lowest favorability ratings of any chief executive since such polls have been taken, will shrug off the cumulative evidence that would be revealed through impeachment hearings?

That having been said, do you think that the Republican Party would begin to feel the heat?  What happened when Republicans began losing safe seats in special elections and Nixon's popularity nose dove precipitously?  Barry Goldwater made a journey to the White House with Republican Senate and House leaders, Hugh Scott and John Rhodes respectively, in tow.  

They told Nixon bluntly that he had no support base and would be defeated in humiliating fashion in a Senate impeachment trial, holding his feet to the fire and compelling his immediate resignation after the beleaguered president had stoutly insisted that he would fight to vindicate himself to the bitter end.

As John Dean, Nixon's former presidential Chief Counsel and one of the Watergate figures who served jail time, has stated, the scandal of the seventies has been dwarfed by the neoconservative unitary executive presided over by Bush and Cheney along with the activities stemming from their relentless conduct.      

2)  Congressman Conyers cited this as a reason against impeachment in a recent article.  This argument goes accordingly.  Look, if we get into impeachment do you realize how much time this will take?  This will effectively shut down Congress!

So what has Congress been achieving through its cumulative efforts that would exceed in importance saving the U.S. Constitution and perhaps the world from a major nuclear calamity?  Can Americans reasonably feel safe for one second with unstable and reckless individuals such as Bush and Cheney exercising command?  

We know what happened in Iraq along with what it has wrought as more dead bodies are shipped home, more wounded return, scarred for life in a war fought to obtain oil resources under the guise of protecting Americans from nuclear attack while more Iraqis die or leave the nation, with the escalating number of refugees now swelling toward 5 million.

How is the Bush-Cheney team faring in the economic sphere?  America is moving ever closer to a $10 trillion debt, the largest in the history of the planet.  

America's currency steadily plummets in comparison to the Euro and British pound with the distinct possibility of, with further erosion, action being taken by the world community to remove the dollar as the usable currency for international oil transactions with support rising for its replacement by the far stronger and steadier Euro.  

Such an event would set off an economic calamity within America with its impact quickly and resoundingly being felt.

Congressman Conyers, what do you hope to accomplish anyhow with Bush and Cheney in office?  Take any action to remove some of big oil's tax loopholes and move us toward a more energy efficient nation through pursuing alternative sources and, as has happened today, the threat of a veto emerges.  

Pass anything that benefits anyone other than the tiny corporate elite that forms the Bush-Cheney neoconservative base and veto will be the ultimate result unless Bush in his role as chief executive in a unitary government decides instead to sign a bill and provide one of his frequent signing statements.  

We know what signing statements mean.  It is a reminder along the lines of Napoleon Bonaparte's dictum of "I am the state!"

Congressman Conyers, did it ever occur to you that you can possibly save lives in America and globally if you act now against Bush and Cheney?  Isn't that worth considering?  What do you expect to accomplish through legislative fiat working with a chief executive who operates as a corrupt, thoroughly rapacious, money grabbing corporation masquerading as a human being?  

No, Congressman, impeachment hearings would result in time much better spent than continuing business as usual; shame on you for not recognizing this obvious fact and acting upon it.  Instead you recently called on Capitol Hill security police personnel to break up an impeachment demonstration outside your office.

3)  This is a point that Senator Reid raised with irritation after he had been asked about impeachment in his recent NPR interview.  He made this point rather huffily.  

Do you really want to recommend impeachment at this point?  Do you realize that we are now at the end of 2007 and that a presidential election will be held next year?  

Soon Bush will be gone and we have a great opportunity to replace him with a Democrat who will put the nation on a different course.  We should be exercising our energies in that pursuit rather than diverting them by seeking to impeach someone who is nearing the end of his term.

That point reminds me of a scene I saw via C-Span at a John Kerry rally in New Hampshire early in the 2004 primary season.  A questioner affiliated with the Lyndon Larouche movement made a statement that was shrugged off that Dick Cheney would not permit an election to be held.

This concern about executive action to terminate a national election due, under certain scenarios, to a possibly contrived terrorist incident contained plausibility in the wake of how the Bush-Cheney neocons were using the Department of Homeland Security to launch terrorist alerts to coincide with certain key events, such as the Democratic National Convention.

While it did not take place in the prescribed manner, the Bush-Cheney corporatist neocons used Plan B when Plan A, the election campaign itself, did not achieve the desired result.  

Exit polls revealed that John Kerry held a 3-point advantage over Bush by 51-48 percent, which was what many major national polling groups had earlier concluded.

It was also concluded that Kerry held advantages over Bush in the critical Electoral College states of Ohio and Florida, both of which were must win states for Bush.

At the beginning of the evening Bush media stalwarts such as Robert Novak were expressing gloom, but then Plan B went into effect and everything changed.  

It all began with the announcement from an elated Ken Mehlman, Republican National Committee head, that Bush had scored a major breakthrough in the vote rich Interstate 4 corridor in the Orlando and Daytona areas of Florida, which he predicted would result in a victory in that crucial state.

Meanwhile the look of almost suicidal gloom that had been on Robert Novak's face earlier had been replaced with an expression of satisfaction.  He had earlier reported gloomily that his sources in Ohio had revealed that Kerry would win the state.  

Novak correctly stated that without Ohio Bush could not win.  Now he had a fresh report.  Novak never explained why his sources had been "wrong" the first time but expressed unalloyed delight that the latest report revealed that Bush would indeed win Ohio.

What had happened?  Plan B had gone into effect.  It was Walden O'Dell, head of the Deibold Corporation, who had written a letter before the 2004 election announcing that he would do everything he could to insure a Bush-Cheney victory.  

He backed down when pressed further, having to curtail his open enthusiasm, but with his company holding lucrative contracts to use his thoroughly unnecessary voting machines to "streamline the process" it was possible to cut off vital Kerry votes here and there and add a few important votes for Bush and Cheney.

Georgia was Deibold land and in 2002, despite polls that predicted victories for Democrats in the strongly contested races for Senator and Governor, the results turned out the other way.  They did as well in states like Minnesota and Colorado as generally reliable polls were proven wrong.  As the science of polling improved the number of errors in forecasting had dramatically increased.

Steve Freeman, a Penn State mathematician, provided an impressive and flaw free essay later expanded into a book that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that Kerry won the election.  Bob Fitzrakis provided an equally impressive essay expanded into a book on how Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, conspiring with the Bush campaign, had secured that state through fraudulent tactics.

The Blackwell tactics included providing lower numbers of voting sites for low income, particularly African American, voters who would assuredly vote for Kerry in large numbers.  Long lines resulted and many left due to cold weather combined with biting rain.  All the same Kerry had a sufficient lead had the skullduggery pertaining to those who cast votes not occurred.

We also recall how the 2000 election turned out when Al Gore led Bush in popular votes and would have won an Electoral College majority had a recount been conducted over the entire state, as Judge Terry Lewis of Tallahassee was virtually certain to mandate.  

The Federalist Society twins of reaction, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, made the difference as alleged states rights-oriented justices of the Supreme Court prevented the State of Florida from conducting a recount in a presidential election.

Now those are the facts, Senator Reid.  Should we feel content now with a fair election occurring with the Bush-Cheney neocon team in power?  If you answered "Yes" then would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?

4)  What if Cheney should be impeached first, as some advocates of impeachment suggest could occur?  Wouldn't this give Bush the power to heavily influence the 2008 election by appointing someone like Rudolph Guiliani?

This was one point among the parade of horribles mentioned by Congressman Conyers.  The answer is crystal clear.  Should America experience the removal of Cheney by impeachment now where would this leave Bush?  How free would his scope of action be in an environment where the individual frequently referred to as America's Prime Minister had been stripped of his office?

Tell me, Congressman, as someone who has been on Capitol Hill so long, don't you think that Bush's political capital bin would be running on empty even before the other shoe dropped and his partner in crime had been removed from office?

How would the American people feel at that point about Bush making a Guiliani appointment?  How disposed would the Senate be under those circumstances and at such a critical point to give Bush his wish even if such an improbable scenario would occur?  

In response to that Conyers suggestion one brief point need be made:  Congressman, please get serious.

5)  Here is another beauty from Conyers.  Look, first of all we don't have the necessary 218 votes so what then if we have a vote on impeachment and we lose?  Think of the danger we will have created!  

Now Bush can take advantage of the whole impeachment episode and generate sympathy from the American people.  Now this in turn will cause a ripple effect that Democrats will feel in the 2008 election and it could very easily cost the party the presidency.

Now let us get our facts straight.  Here we are with Bush standing at a critically low level of popular support from Americans.  Now we have had an opportunity to air all of the charges against him.  These are a series of charges that in comparison make Watergate and the truly pathetic Richard Nixon Imperial Presidency look like a group of kids innocently frolicking on a summer beach.

Congressman, are you kidding?  

Can you really see, after all of the charges have been leveled and all that investigation into lying a nation into war for oil and trashing the Constitution while invading our privacy along with tolerating if not directly aiding and abetting inhumane torture on individuals before they have an opportunity to be tried for alleged crimes that you think the public would hold one iota of sympathy for Bush?

Congressman, all he has now are Limbaugh Dittoheads and Fox Zombies.  That isn't much of a base to start with and you think he would expand it after he has been exposed?  In that environment will the Republicans hold firm and support him?

Now it is time to get serious.  How safe do you feel knowing that a make believe Texas cowboy who drank heavily and probably took drugs as well at least until he was 40?

He had a hobby of blowing up frogs with firecrackers in his youth and as an adult raises a clench fist and exclaims "Feels good!" while bombs fall on Baghdad.  

He rules alongside  a sociopathic corporate marauder with a penchant for global conquest whose heart is in pathetic shape while he vigilantly fights to achieve the neoconservative dream of global empire.

How safe do you feel knowing that corporate marauder Cheney adheres to the 1 percent solution, meaning that if there is even a 1 percent chance of a terrorist threat or that a nation might be inclined to attack America that we attack?

The time for discussion has passed.  It is now time for action.  In the name of saving this nation it is time to move toward impeachment and hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their actions.