Letters to the Editor
kovie
Published Letters: 632
-
Michael Harold
[Read the article: Bush's magical shield from criminal prosecution]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I never said lines hadn't been crossed. They were crossed soon after 1/20/69 and have been recrossed multiple times since. The real "line" is the one that can be traced all the way back to the early Nixon administration (although one can certainly trace it further back with the fake Gulf of Tonkin resolution, and perhaps to Kennedy if not Eisenhower and their use of the CIA to overthrow and replace leaders in the mideast, promote the massive development of the M-I complex, and commit various crimes under the guise of national security, but I digress).
Clearly, Bush has long since cross any possible lines of return. I'd say that this was sometime during the 2000 election. Others may quibble. He took office illegally, and has ruled illegally since. There is no reasonable dispute to be made there and I see no point in revisiting all of these crimes in much detail right now since we're all quite familiar with them. Bush is a tyrant. Or, more accurately, a would-be tyrant who has already arrogated to himself various substantial tyrannical powers that he's yet to be checked on let alone relinquish (hah as if!), and asserted even more egregious ones that he is in the process of trying to make real and uncheckable.
I'm not not disputing any of this, nor that congress MUST do something about it ASAP, or else he may well succeed (and I only say "may" because there's always the possibility that fortune will somehow intervene and bring him down despite congressional efforts or lack thereof, e.g. Mark Foley writ VERY large). What I am disputing is the wisdom and feasibility of particular approaches that congress may take to accomplish this, or the assertions some have made here and elsewhere that it has done nothing, or effectively nothing. I think that congress has gone after Bush. Perhaps not aggressively or quickly enough, but in what I view as a more than just symbolic manner intended mainly to appease the base and their consciences.
More to the point, I think that, for reasons that I articulated previously, congress is limited in what it can do by various constitutional, legal, institutional, political, practical and other constraints and realities, and that within these constraints, it has done a reasonably decent job. Yes, I know that people want impeachment--as do I, in my heart--but no one has yet offered what I view as a convincing argument for doing it now. I.e. one that would convince me that conviction is possible, without which I just don't see the point, and which if it didn't happen would come with its own dangers. And yes, I believe that it could move more quickly and aggressively. But, again, those constraints--many of which we are not privy to, I'm sure, because they concern internal party politics and who knows what else.
So yes, I'd love to see congress do all that it can to set this right. But I honestly don't know what it could do, on the whole, to improve upon what it has been doing that is any more likely to succeed, and which doesn't come with serious risks. You and others are welcome to suggest ideas. I'd love to hear them. I'd also like to hear Glenn's ideas. But as it stands, right now I just can't think of any. And to make sure that I'm clear on what I mean by what congress is currently doing, I mean continuing to conduct oversight, which at this point really calls for that showdown over subpoenas, by issuing contempt citations, via one of the three paths open to it. I.e. criminal contempt, civil contempt or inherent contempt. I'd like to see them persue all three if possible, and see where it leads.
If, as promised, the DoJ will command DC USA Taylor to not enforce, hold HIM in contempt and do what needs to be done there (and let's not forget that he's out of a job and the DC district court gets to name his replacement in the fall as per S.214, which I seem to be the only person in the blogosphere to give a damn about--just love that attention to detail people show in their quest to take Bush down). At the same time, congress can and should persue civil contempt (which from what I've read may or may not be possible against the administration as per federal code), as well as inherent contempt.
And, of course, keep hacking away on Iraq and other big issues, and keep holding those hearings and issuing yet more subpeonas. The more they keep at it, the more I believe that the public will get fed up with Bush and take their side--the public tends to like fighters of course--the more the media will play it up for it ratings and sensationalism aspect, and the more nervous Repubs will be about '08. Congress shoudl use its oversight and other powers to push the politics, and wait for the politics to drive forward the oversight. I think that the two should coalesce sometime over the next 3-6 months and Repubs will begin to peel away in panic. Each one who does makes the Dems more powerful, which will embolden them and encourage yet more Repubs to peel away.
This is currently the approach with Iraq, but it should be the one with everything. Make it an across the board full court press, and just drive it home. And while it's a long shot, it may even lead to impeachment and conviction. Beyond that, I really don't see what Dems can fundamentally do that they haven't done. It's like Watergate. The initial investigations and hearings were slow-moving and broad-based, but as evidence mounted and the administration stonewalled harder and more egregiously, things picked up, the public began to side with congress, and things snowballed from there. This is how I see this going, if anything is going to hold them accountable and take them down.