Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Harper's: The Case For Impeachment

The March cover of Harper's magazine contains two bold words: Impeach Him and the related article by Lewis H. Lapham, The Case for Impeachment, Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush (online excerpt) sets out the clear reasons for such a call.

Lapham brings to light House Resolution 635 submitted during the fall session of congress by Congressman John Conyers - a tireless Democratic politician who has continually championed matters of extreme concern to the left. That resolution called for the following:


Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.


Lapham correctly characterizes this bill as "not a high-minded tilting at windmills but the production of a report, 182 pages, 1,022 footnotes" and concludes with a fierce statement that many of us on the left have known to be true for a very long time:


Before reading the report, I wouldn't have expected to find myself thinking that such a course of action was either likely or possible; after reading the report, I don't know why we would run the risk of not impeaching the man. We have before us in the White House a thief who steals the country's good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use; a liar who seeks to instill in the American people a state of fear; a televangelist who engages the United States in a never-ending crusade against all the world's evil, a wastrel who squanders a vast sum of the nation's wealth on what turns out to be a recruiting drive certain to multiply the host of our enemies. In a word, a criminal—known to be armed and shown to be dangerous.


Lapham is convinced that the evidence presented supports a charge of conspiracy to commit fraud. When he asked Conyers why he had presented such a resolution, knowing that the Republicans hold power in all 3 branches of government and that actual impeachment was an unlikely outcome at this time, Conyers, as Lapham frames it, simply replied:


“To take away the excuse,” he said, “that we didn't know.” So that two or four or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, “Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?” when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that “somehow it escaped our notice” that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law.


Bravo, Congressman Conyers. Bravo!

With Bush's poll numbers now at the lowest level ever: 34%, the mismanagement of the Dubai Ports World deal which has challenged Bush's credibility in his own base about national security issues, the NSA spying scandal, the horrid spectacle the public witnesssed following huricane Katrina - along with so many other recent political missteps by his administration - Democrats seem well-poised to gain power during this year's elections. And, if that happens, John Conyers may then have the force of congress behind him to see that impeachment of George W Bush becomes a reality.

UPDATE: Straight from the "And, exactly why is this old news coming out again now?" department, The Hill is running a story titled, Former Conyers aides press ethics complaints. If all you read is the headline, you'd incorrectly assume that these complaints are new. They're not. Read the article.

Conyer's bill for impeachment featured in Harper's + old allegations surface in The Hill = Karl Rove.

Simple math.

No comments:

Post a Comment