Comment from Signs Of the Times with a link to an article about the Protect America and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Acts. Perhaps the Democrats’ passiveness stems from Bush using the acts to secretly spy on and blackmail them? It makes sense:
One wonders at this impeccable record of failure by the Dems, considering the numerical majority they hold in Congress. The Constitution is remarkable clear about the course of action Congress is to pursue regarding the Bush Reich, yet they have sidestepped it at every turn. It is as if there is a collective stranglehold on them.
Source: Stephen Dick, The Herald Bulletin.
“The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” – Article II, Section 4, U.S. Constitution
There’s really no equivocation in this simple statement. It doesn’t say impeachment will be considered, but it “shall be.”
Articles of impeachment are drawn up in the House of Representatives, which, if approved, move over to the Senate for trial.
In the face of the most lawless administration in U.S. history, what are we to make of a House that refuses its duty to impeach? Just a decade ago, fire-breathing Republicans impeached Bill Clinton for lying under oath about an affair. Now, manipulating intelligence to go to war and illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens rate not even the lift of an eyebrow in the House. Maybe that’s because the House is complicit in those crimes.
With only seven months to go in this rogue administration, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, spent four hours on the House floor last week reading 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. Kucinich, whose presidential aspirations went nowhere, was nothing if not exhaustive.
The articles begin with a secret propaganda campaign to manufacturing a false case for war with Iraq to endangering the health of 9/11 responders. In between, there are accusations of conspiracy to violate voter rights, Katrina failure, secret laws and failing to comply with congressional subpoenas. Each article is detailed with evidence, and each article is grounds for impeachment.
Kucinich read his articles on June 10. The next day, I received a call from a reader baffled why there was nothing in the paper about it. The wire services barely bothered with it. The media considers it a nonissue and so does the House.
According to a short Associated Press story on June 11 (one that concerned itself more with Kucinich than his charges), the House voted to move the articles to a committee, “a procedure often used to kill legislation.”
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was clear when the Democrats regained the House in 2006 that there would be no talk of impeachment. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, sniveling behind Pelosi’s skirt, uttered his agreement.
The reasoning was that the Democrats had better things to do than waste time on the partisan battle of impeachment. They had to right the wrongs of Bush.
A year and a half later, what have the Democrats done? Absolutely nothing. They’ve caved in repeatedly to all of Bush’s demands. As Reid recently told Rolling Stone, there’s nothing the Democrats can do until a Democratic president is elected. How utterly pathetic is that?
Kucinich and Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, filed impeachment articles against Vice President Dick Cheney last November. Republicans then, as the AP wrote, saw “a chance to force Democrats into an embarrassing debate (and) voted to bring up the resolution.” The Democrats scuttled the bill, but what would’ve been embarrassing about it?
Democrats had the law on their side, which used to trump politics. Using the law to expose the criminality of government officials is not partisan. It’s the House’s duty.
I’m glad Kucinich got the articles into the congressional record. At least someone had the chutzpah to do so despite the spineless Democratic leadership, which will continue its abysmal appeasement of an administration out of control.
Just last week, Bush, speaking in Europe, upped the bellicose rhetoric about how terrible Iran is. Even the mainstream media was speculating that Bush will invade Iran before his watch is up to tie the hands of a (possibly) more peaceful successor.
What will the Democratic-led Congress do if Bush decides to invade? Will Democrats, as Reid suggested, roll over and give Bush what he wants while they await their savior? It would be ironic if Reid and the other cowards found themselves dealing with yet another war as a Democratic president came to office. Would the Democrats, as Reid insists, get what they want then, or would they still be dealing with Bush as he returns to his slacker ways in Crawford?
Stephen Dickwrites for The Herald Bulletin in Anderson, Ind. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.