David Corn is Wrong: Impeachment is Necessary

Link: TomPaine.com - Impeachment At Our Peril.

Let's stipulate three propositions. First, George W. Bush led the nation into an elective war with false information and false assurances. Second, Bush acted with reckless abandon and immense neglect by inadequately planning for what would come after the initial U.S. invasion of Iraq. Third, Bush botched key decisions regarding the war, while refusing to acknowledge the hellish reality his invasion created. As a consequence, thousands of Americans are dead, as are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Impeachment would be a suitable punishment for such actions. Still, congressional Democrats ought to resist the calls to engage in constitutional patricide.

To my mind, what follows from the 3 points Corn make is precisely the opposite--Bush must be impeached.

If you read Corn's whole post, you'll see that it's paired with one urging impeachment on 'national healing grounds.' Please. I hate that sort of discourse. Actually, last night on the Tavis Smiley show, one of Tavis's guests criticized the 'theater of politics' around redemption in the black community, the staging of an issue of moral outrage, emergence of a black leader to broker the resolution, and staging of a community process of healing, a whole show, in other words, that displaces actual problems and issues from the political arena (of course he was talking about Michael Richards and the bizarre 'ban' on the n-word). At any rate, I digress.

And move to another digression. Paul (my partner) just finished teaching his course in con law. The course ended with impeachment. 53% of Americans think that Bush should be impeached if he lied about his reasons for going to war in Iraq. It's also clear to everyone that Bush lied about the war. So, he should be impeached. Unfortunately, when Paul polled his class, the majority was against impeachment. They are more conservative than Americans in general.

Why in the world would Corn call impeachment a patricide? Please. Bush is not our father. The president is not our father. Such fantastic investments in the figure of the chief executive are part of what has prevented Democrats from properly opposing Bush all along. Would Republicans have referred to Clinton in such terms? Not at all (ok, this is overstating it; one can make a case that for Republicans Clinton was the primal jouisseur who took all enjoyment for himself and thus had to be killed if they were to be able to enjoy).

Corn worries about polarizing an electorate--um, the electorate is already polarized. What progressives need to do is mobilize. And, in the process, work against polarization by bringing more people over to the side of impeachment (I'd also favor turning the whole administration over to the ICC). Unify on the basis of facing up to the fact that the nation has been sucking on the teat of self-satisfied patriotic blood lust combined with high fructose corn syrup the last 6 years.

Corn's whole post is written from the position of the ideal ego as conservative/Republican. That's who's watching, that's the position before which one must see and judge oneself. Don't disappoint or annoy it. Why is he worried that impeachment will look like a power grab? It only looks this way from a certain position (ideal ego). He worries about people acting like extremists--my god, has he been asleep the last 6 years? If progressives don't push Democrats in an extreme direction the mainstream political debate will never return to the center. It will stay in the conservatives cloud koo-koo land.

Comments

[Patrick J. Mullins]

I fully agree that Bush should be impeached and could not believe the term 'constitutional patricide.' Bush doesn't even seem like he could have 'had to get married' in junior high and had to deal with teenage fatherhood, much less Audenesque 'colossal Dad' stuff. As is known from the Suskind, Condi and company have been careful enablers for the Bush Baby's secretions of tantrum, and just hope he won't do too much in public...I think even Cheney rolls his eyes from time to time about the the Diaper Memory.

I don't see anything extremist about impeaching Bush. What indeed was extremist is the last years, especially 2004-2006, which were so dangerous I cannot even believe we even begin to get a chance to recover from them.

[Jodi]

I fully agree--in a way, it's extremist not to impeach Bush, extreme in the sense that it happily forfeits any faith in the constitution, that it accepts torture, wiretapping, and illegal war as the order of things.

[Luke]

How do you think the immediate historical precedent (of impeaching a president for improper sexual acts) effects the political will behind politics today on this issue? Another question is whether there are pragmatic reasons not to impeach the president right now, either from the point of view of the new congressional majority or from the point of view of US political stability? That said, I agree that a little more visceral outrage at the political mendacity of the current regime would be nice.

[Craig]

The connection between impeachment and murder is quite interesting - how is removing someone from office the equivalent of a murder? If we're to get hung up words while preserving the idea of murder, certainly "regicide" is more appropriate given the style of rule, his original ascension and the "unitary executive theory" (which, of course, bears a certain resemblace to absolutist monarchy).

[Patrick J. Mullins]

also Craig--impeachment is not removal: Clinton was impeached but not removed, and God knows he's as far from death as any living politician (if anything, he has improved his jouissance thefts so he doesn't have to lie in Little Rock any more). But even though Nixon removed himself from office, he wasn't murdered either, hence that amazing phrase 'constitutional patricide'. But although Nixon was closer to political murder than Clinton by a long shot, he still was not so stupid that, upon retirement, he didn't still have plenty of things to say that people and especially former presidents still listened to, and sometimes respected. It's nearly impossible to imagine people seeking out Bush upon his retirement, as there is no even corrupted wisdom to seek out--you've got this little drab popinjay-thing.

And, to take what Jodi says one step further, the phrase really ought to be 'presidential homicide' with the Constitution as partial victim and near-total victim (by probably just one Supreme Court Justice appointee's hair's-breadth.) What Bush has managed to do with the Court is as scary as anything he has done. Without this election, it surely must be certain that a fully empowered Executive would have emerged, wouldn't it? Congress with no power at all, the Court getting stocked with more Presidential-power appointees, Tony Snow day in, day out, Dick Cheney with that smug crooked smile doing some more lying about the success in Iraq, Rumsfeld still there.

And the matter of 'national healing grounds' should be immediately ignored in this case now that the power to do so (or not) is in the hands of those who are able to do it. Because they won't get another chance if they blow it this time. If anything, they should force Bush to be nice, humiliate him in any and all ways. There's a good chance they will be able to figure out how to do this, just because he has even started getting publicly peevish and snappish--Americans don't like that sort of thing, and Bush is bound to show more of his little-boyness in the ensuing days, because he still does not know quite what's new. 'National healing grounds' is really the more appropriate phrase for the severely damaged Christian right to use for begging purposes--not anyone who wants to make sure they've got this can of worms back in the can.

[Jonathan]

The poll question said "Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment" not "Congress should impeach." I doubt the latter would get 53%.

[Matt]

(Presumably Congress should always consider this, among other Constitutional duties.

Kinda like a poll on whether a Representive should be at least 25 and a Senator at least 30, then.)

[Matt]

Ah I see:

Impeachment advocates argue that they are merely exercising a constitutional option, adhering to fundamental obligations and answering, even if hesitantly, the call of (constitutional) duty. A president lies us into war. Aren't we compelled by principles to impeach him, no matter the political consequences? But the Constitution is not a political suicide pact. Impeachment would look like a bold power grab—and that could trigger a backlash against the Democrats (as it did with the Republicans during the Clinton wars).

Sweet backlash, so nonexistent and yet notable.

[Matt]

Impeachment is a substitute—a wishful shortcut?—for the difficult legislating and organizing that the Democratic Party and progressives must do to win the country in 2008. The Dems have a window of opportunity at the moment to show the public what Democratic governance looks like. They should investigate the Bush administration on many fronts, including how Bush misrepresented the prewar intelligence and how he bungled the war, as well as Bush's expansive claims of executive power and how he has put such imperial thinking into practice (wiretaps, detentions, etc.). Perhaps such investigations will produce information or a showdown (say, the White House refusing to turn over information to Congress) that would strengthen the legal and political cases for impeachment. But in order to create a lasting and positive relationship with the electorate, Democrats must deliver legislatively and produce significant bills that connect with the concerns of Americans. That's job No. 1.

The pragmatic considerations would perhaps be better taken, at least among this audience, with something resembling a progressive Democratic party in majority - one likely to redefine itself with passion.

Then, the choice might amount to more than that between impeachment and a beggarly raise to an archaic minimum "wage," complete with another Clinton poised to take credit.

Then again, though, it still might.

[Steve Moyer]

Reference: Impeachment is Necessary

What is taking America so long to come to its senses? Impeachment is necessary.
Justice requires it. Impeachment is a process whereby we hear the facts in open hearings before the House of Representatives. What kind of twisted reasoning is being used to convince us that this is a bad thing? It's a good thing. The path to justice is paved with the truth.

The truth is that George Bush and Richard Cheney lied to the nation about the necessity of war. They have violated the Constitution, their oath of office, federal statutes and the will of the people. Enough already. Start the hearings.

The way out of Iraq is through the White House. This means that we either impeach these two criminals or we wait for 2008 and remove them through the electoral process. If we wait they will continue their insane "war on terror" and create an even bigger mess for America and the world.

Get on with it. There's nothing to fear from the truth. Have the hearings. Get the witnesses sworn in and let them tell the truth to the American people. We have a right to hear the truth.

Justice requires it.

Steve Moyer

stevemoyer.us

You go Steve.