It's been a long journey, but I'm now at the point where I regard George Bush's impeachment as a necessity. I believe the effort should be undertaken now, no matter or even especially if it is destined to fail.
I don't normally believe that my personal trains of thought rise to the level of public discourse, but I find that many of the people I converse with regularly are coming to a similar conclusion. None of us, I believe, have come to it lightly.
I don't consider myself a leftist caricature. My father died in the Vietnam War; my stepfather served in the Air Force until his retirement a decade ago. I know how to shoot a gun, I've run my own business, and frankly, some lefties embarrass the hell out of me. I opposed the Iraq war out of the simple calculation that it was not in our national interest to be invested in that country, and because I believed that the people in charge did not have a clue about the all-important postwar scenario. I'm not all that sure that immediate withdrawal from Iraq is in the U.S. national interest, either; my goal there is and remains victory, no matter how much I disagree with the conflict in the first place. Great powers don't lose wars without suffering damage, in my opinion, to that status, and the consequences of defeat in Iraq would be horrific. From where I stand, the only person with a clue about foreign policy in this country remains Henry Kissinger. Domestically, I was aghast at Gavin Newsom's decision to allow marriage licenses for gay couples in San Francisco, not because I disagreed with the larger objective, but because it violated a proper reverence for the law. From where I stand, Newsom should have been impeached on the spot.
I find much to disagree with in the policies of George Bush and his party. I think "faith-based initiatives" violate the wall of separation. Their corruption and cronyism is damaging the formerly muscular U.S. economy. The same can be said of their borrow-and-spend profligacy and their deregulatory efforts. I'm appalled at the sheer extent of their incompetence, as this WashPost editorial lays out. Their assault on basic scientific integrity, as part of a wider attempt to ideologize everything within reach, is appalling. I'm pretty sure that Karl Rove did indeed out Valerie Plame, that George Bush knew there were no nukes in Iraq, that they have no clue about how to deal with Iran, and that the country is perilously adrift with no clear direction.
None of these observations, however, rise to the level of impeachable offenses in my view. With the exception of the reasons for war, the proper remedy for political actions is at the voting booth. If this is what the American people want, this is what they should get. If a voter chooses to give credence to the libelous drivel oozing from Fox or the smear-boaters, then that is that voter's right.
What is different now is that George Bush has broken the law with his illegal domestic spying. The facts of the case are clear: the governing law for domestic wiretaps is the FISA statute. Congress passed this law in 1978 in response to Richard Nixon's claim of executive privilege on national security matters. The administration itself sought congressional authority to operate domestically in this 'war on terror' business, and was rebuffed; the AUMF does not allow it to operate within the borders of the United States except under strict safeguards. The White House now claims authority to ignore FISA based on the war-making powers of the constitution. In fact, the domestic spying is now being re-branded as 'terrorist surveillance' and trotted out as a campaign issue. Meanwhile, there is no end in sight for the war on terror, no concrete enemy to defeat, no way to know when we've won. By way of comparison, the IRA started its war on the British Government in 1916, and there is no reason to expect Al Qaeda to have a shorter lifespan.
The question is not, as the administration and its lackeys would have us believe, whether domestic spying is legal. It is, under FISA. The question is rather whether the executive branch can, at its own discretion and pleasure, ignore the legislative acts of Congress. If Congress affirms this action, they might as well go home, because they will be nothing more than an advisory body humbly petitioning the throne, much like the Saudi-Arabian Majlis. If Bush and his successors can ignore FISA, then what can they not do? In a 'generational war', as this war on terror has been called, under the view of Bush and his counselors, the power of the legislature to govern is subject to Presidential approval. We will be an empire, not a democratic republic.
Some will argue that this is rank partisanship. I beg to differ. There is no immediate or short-term gain for Democrats from pushing impeachment, given that we do not control Congress. Bush's replacement would be Dick Cheney, who could then appoint a new Vice President. If he chooses well, that person would go into the 2008 elections with the bonus of incumbency. Arguably, impeachment could cost us seats, given media complacency and the fury sure to erupt over in the rightwing echo chamber. The part of me that loves power and winning above all else is not thrilled at the idea.
However, that larger part of me that looks to history, to the legacy we have been handed as Americans, is more than willing to defend the privileges even of a republican Congress. Separation of powers, accountability, and oversight are not partisan issues. Americans need to rise up and say that enough is enough. Our history, our constitution and our future demand no less.
