Brattleboro Vermont resident Kurt Daims has drafted a ballot question petition calling for the town to indict George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for crimes against the Constitution, and making it the law that if either man comes to town, he would be liable to arrest.
Some will say that this is just another unenforceable ordinance at best, and an absurdity at worst. Others worry that it will detract from the gravity of the impeachment movement as it stands today, on the cusp of forcing hearings in the House Judiciary committee. The argument will be made that such "extreme" rhetorical proclamations only serve to divide us further from each other, marginalizing the demand for accountability, rather than promoting it.
Upon reflection these arguments can be answered and laid to rest.
To date, the most persuasive and productive arguments for impeachment have been based upon the Constitution, which is suffering most egregiously under this administration and Congress, and which expressly proscribes the remedy to be taken should these circumstances arise. And while these arguments are making headway in the halls of Congress, where impeachment must happen, the politicians who are supposed to represent us do not yet understand the depth and breadth of our disgust and dismay with their dereliction of duty. While a growing number have joined the call for impeachment, far too many are towing the identical Republican/Democratic party line of ignoring the Bush/Cheney administration's repeated constitutional violations.
When we last faced a King George who labored to: "subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution" by: "depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury: For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses", when we last found that "our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury", we knew what conclusion to draw: "A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." These of course are quotes from the Declaration of Independence. And when this document was solemnly signed and made public, it had no legal standing whatsoever. It had no chance of succeeding against the world's greatest empire. It alienated the colonists still friendly to England. It drew a line that clearly demarcated the divide that already existed in colonial society. Those who signed it were branded as radicals and, in fact, made outlaws by virtue of their signatures.
Independence was declared because the laws and actions of the government were violating the laws of nature and common morality. As members of a commonweal, colonists understood that it was their inherent right, if not duty, to rise in defense of societal standards of humanity, decency and fairness. Mr. Daims and others who drafted the Brattleboro Bush/Cheney Indictment are acting in the same spirit, and with the same moral authority as our founders did in 1776.
Prosecutors in France, Spain and many other countries have issued indictments for crimes against humanity committed outside of their borders, without regard to the nationality of the perpetrator. In some cases, prosecutors have won arrests, extraditions and prosecutions. Why shouldn't Brattleboro give precedence to Constitutional, American and International law, rather than bow to political expediency and a misplaced desire to not rock the boat? The boat has already foundered. The nation is already divided. Our political leaders have debased themselves and rendered our Republic dysfunctional.
Let us support this call for an indictment. Let Brattleboro show the nation that in the current course of events, it has become necessary for Americans to take action. The current government respects neither the Constitution nor the people. Let us represent ourselves.
Bush and Cheney have broken the law consistently throughout their reign, often openly, and to the great detriment of our own country and others; when they obey it, they do so more as a matter of convenience than from any fealty to it or any fear of retribution. They’re pleased to use the legislature to achieve their ends when they can — as when Congress obligingly immunized administration personnel from prosecution under the War Crimes Act — and to ignore it when they can’t. Former Justice Department official Jack Goldsmith explains the dynamic as described to him by Dick Cheney’s current number two, torture maven David Addington: “We’re going to push and push and push until some larger force makes us stop.” They have, and that larger force has not materialized — and the administration have been at pains to ensure that the force, if it ever arrives, won’t do so in the person of the courts — and the result is a constitutional republic with its framework intact and its guts eviscerated. There is only one remedy, and that’s impeachment.
I understand (but don't endorse) the political strategy that says that pushing for impeachment "hurts the Dems at the polls" in 2008. And I wouldn't have endorsed it even it if had been true the last time they said it -- in 2006 -- even as Democrats in localities where impeachment efforts took root posted historic gains and even outperformed their colleagues nationally.
But I understand fear. Really, I do.
Still, you have to wonder what kind of a long term strategy this is for the exercise of power in America. In the 40 years or so since Nixon's first election, the Democrats have held the Congress for 28 years, and been out of power for just 12. It's the exact reverse with respect to the White House, where Democrats have been out for 28 years and in for just 12. During that time, the Republicans have reelected three presidents -- arguably the most aggressive expanders of executive power to occupy the office -- Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush. In the same space of time, Democrats have reelected just one president (the first elected to two terms since FDR, by the way) -- and that guy got impeached!
So I find myself at a loss for explaining why laying low rather than vigorously defending the powers of the one branch Democrats have been successful at holding is so brilliant and pragmatic. It seems to me that the strategy puts all our eggs in one very shaky basket: winning and holding the White House in perpetuity.
I want to win the White House as much as anybody in 2008. Maybe more. But I also know that there's another election coming up after that. And another after that. And another after that. Should we be so unfortunate as to lose one, on what grounds would a later Congress assert the prerogatives it has surrendered this time around? And wouldn't the effort to reassert those powers just fall prey to the same pathetic excuse that quashes it today?
I'm sitting in Filene Auditorium at Dartmouth, waiting for the festivities to begin. The Impeach Bush & Cheney banner has been hung, and the room is rumbling with the sound of excited people.
I'm sitting in Filene Auditorium at Dartmouth, waiting for the festivities to begin. The Impeach Bush & Cheney banner has been hung, and the room is rumbling with the sound of excited people.
A couple of issues near and dear to the hearts of Vermont activists are playing out (or beginning to).
First is the aftermath of Rep. Dennis Kucinich's move to do what so many Vermonters wanted Rep. Peter Welch to do - sort of. As everyone has no doubt heard by now, Kucinich called the impeachment question on the floor of the House (where motions on impeachment are considered privileged and must be addressed). Yay Dennis, except, well - it was a call for the impeachment of Cheney, which seems to me to miss the target politically and ethically. Long past are the bygone days where people on the left wondered whether President Bush was no more than an ineffectual empty suit. Cheney may be his most crude, effective and brazen hatchet man, but he is still a hatchet man - a mere symptom of the problem that is Bush himself.
In any event, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland moved quickly to table the motion, but was stymied by a block of Democrats joined (ultimately, after some vote-switching) by Republicans who thought a public debate over the merits of ditching a vice president whose approval rating is nearly in the single digits would somehow embarass his critics more than his defenders (this is bizarro world, isn't it?). The motion was not tabled, but, after getting the dissident Dems marching to his drum, was then quickly sent by Hoyer to the Judiciary committee where the profoundly disappointing Chair, Rep. John Conyers, will simply stack it to die along with the other Kucinich impeachment resolution gathering cobwebs in that committee.
But the question on everyone's mind is - will Kucinich simply bring it to the floor again (and aim at Bush next time)? By House rules, it remains a privileged motion that must be considered. If Kucinich is serious, he could well bring it to the floor on primetime every day of the session. He's gotten gobs of good feedback on this, so activists are watching and waiting...
Second is Rep. Welch's moment of truth on Iraq funding that is now on on its way.
When people hear that we are running a candidate to oppose Vermont Democratic Congressman Peter Welch in next year’s election, they are often quick to mention that next term will be too late to impeach Bush or Cheney. This is an indication that they either miss the point, or that they are dedicated Democrats who can’t bear to see erstwhile allies bearing down on their compatriots.
Allow me to explain our reasons for running. During the last election cycle, the American people made it abundantly clear that we wanted serious change. The Democratic victory, which was larger that anything that even the Democrats had dared to hoped for, was a mandate to bring the occupation of Iraq to an end, and to stop Bush from further damaging the country, if not to hold him accountable.
Instead, we see the Democratic Congressional leadership shying away from meaningful confrontation with the President or Vice-President, and being unable and unwilling to take a single significant step in ending or even slowing the occupation. John Conyers, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, the man who, while serving in the Republican controlled House during the last Congress, wrote the book on the impeachment of Bush, now not only doesn’t believe in it, but is fighting tooth and nail to keep it from being considered in his committee.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has declared impeachment “off the table”. She prefers to watch Bush and Cheney twist in the wind for the next 18 months in the hopes that the Democrats will thus inherit the White House. What she and Conyers fail to include in their political calculations are the numbers of lives to be lost while those 18 months creep by and Bush continues to act out on his policy whims. What she and Conyers, and Peter Welch and the vast majority of Democratic lawmakers who are going along with this masquerade are conveniently forgetting to put into their calculus is that they have taken a professional and moral oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
We will run a candidate who knows that their first loyalty is to the Constitution and their second is to their constituents. We don’t care who the next President is. We do not want to give her or him anything near the amount of power that George Bush has amassed for the current executive branch. The Democrats say “trust us, we’re on your side, it will all come out in the wash with the next election.” We say what have you done to deserve our trust? Where is your defense of the Constitution?
Where is your moral outrage? Where is an investigation that is really focusing on the crimes of the President or the Vice-President and not just concentrating on their underlings? Where are the results of all this important work that you claim to be doing which is precluding you from taking any action on impeachment? Since when is some future judgment of history an adequate substitute for justice served in response to constitutional breaches and criminality?
If you want to know what a determined opposition can do to a President from the other side of the aisle, take a glance at Newt Gingrich’s Congress and how they went after Bill Clinton, yielding no ground and effectively bottling him up and neutralizing him. The best that these current Democrats can do is to waste money rolling out the cots so they can stay up all night with a pajama party talkfest about how bad they think the war is. There is a reason that the only body in this nation with a lower approval rating than the President is the Congress. It is because they have betrayed the American people. If we wanted discredited Republican policies to continue, we would have voted the Republicans back in.
The hubris and condescension that emanates from lawmakers who tell us that in spite of the majority of their constituents demanding impeachment and accountability, they know better and are ignoring our demands for our own good are infuriating and nauseating. They, like the President, are putting themselves above the constrictions of the Constitution and think that they are wise Pooh-Bahs, when they are nothing more than puppets for the corporate oligarchy for whom most of our government functions.
We are running to take back our country from the political parties who have squandered and misdirected our resources, destroyed any veneer of respectability that might have survived the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years and have cast us into the darkness of endless war against an ethereal enemy.
Things aren't looking so hot for Bush consigliere and attorney general Alberto Gonzales lately, even worse after last week's perjury and evasion testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even many Republicans can't seem to ignore the stench of Gonzales, and aren't jumping in to support him.
The good news is that there was a resolution sumitted today by Congressman Jay Inslee of Washington's 1st congressional district, that is calling for an investigation into the possibility of impeaching the Attorney General:
Specifically, the resolution would require the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. The resolution would need to win approval by a majority of the House for the panel to start investigating. If after an investigation the Judiciary Committee, by majority vote, determines that grounds for impeachment exist, a resolution impeaching the attorney general and setting forth specific allegations of misconduct, in one or more articles of impeachment, would be reported to the full House.
I couldn't find the number of the resolution, but you can read its full text here. More below the jump.
The following is an op-ed I wrote that appears in today's Times-Argus, for which I am suitably braced for much grief. In fact, I promise to keep my mouth shut in the comments...
The Vermont Impeachment Movement has taken many forms over the last year-and-a-half. At its best, it represented a political cross-section of Vermonters, united in little more than their view that President Bush had broken the law and should be removed from office. At its worst, it's been an echo chamber inhabited by a handful of activists with axes to grind against virtually everyone else inhabiting the political system.
The announcement that "the Impeachment Movement" has decreed that Rep. Peter Welch is contemptuous of the Constitution because he doesn't agree with them and must be punished in November by facing an "impeachment" candidate (who, of course, would only take office after Bush was gone) suggests that the echo chamber is all that remains.
I, for one, am saddened. I was among the earliest organizers of the impeachment movement that swept Democratic Committees last year, demanding action from the Vermont Legislature. When our efforts merged with activist Dan DeWalt's town meeting movement, I was thrilled.
But gradually, we Democrats who had started the legislative push found ourselves marginalized. When our own party's leadership spurned us, they created a leadership vacuum that was filled by activists with a different agenda ? one quickly made known to us in no uncertain terms. As Welch dealt with all of us honorably ? bringing our shared concerns to the House floor even though he disagreed ? it seemed clear that the fix was already in. Behind the scenes and before the cameras, Welch became the whipping boy for an increasingly shrill, politically exclusive crowd whose real target was anybody they considered to be in the political mainstream and who dared to disagree.
As such, everybody saw this announcement coming a mile away.
We don't often quote conservatives like Andrew Sullivan around here, but he has a very interesting discussion in his blog last week, and I think it's interesting precisely because he's a conservative.
If you're like me, you don't have any trouble with the fact that Libby and Cheney arranged to do whatever they had to do to destroy Valerie Wilson and her husband, and you really don't have any trouble believing that the stories they used to mislead the United States into invading Iraq were just lies.
Sullivan doesn't want to believe it, especially the part about lying, so he spends more time that we might trying to psychoanalyze Cheney and Libby's motives. What he comes up with is really pretty clear:
I fully respect the anger and frustration many Americans feel with this Administration. I share much of it. But on balance, I think Congress?s time is much better spent ending the war in Iraq, conducting the oversight that was absent for the last six years, and advancing progressive legislation.
I respectfully disagree, and in the strongest possible terms.
"Over-use of impeachment", Senator?
Do you seriously mean to equate the trumped-up Republican nonsense of the Clinton impeachment with the crimes and excesses of the Bush administration?
If you are as disappointed to hear this as I am - or even if you're not - follow me below the fold.
As you've likely heard by now, Senator Leahy has subpoenad documents from the President and Vice President's offices. As you probably have also heard, the decider and the fourth branch of government have, predictably, pretty much repeated Cheney's oft quoted admonition to our senior Senator delivered in the Senate Halls some time back. Leahy has since responded:
This White House cannot have it both ways. They cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred.
"Increasingly, the President and Vice President feel they are above the law --- in America no one is above law."
From a moral standpoint, perhaps. From a legal or procedural standpoint, perhaps not.
First off, they can say whatever they want. We're well past the point where it's realistic to believe that anyone in the White House thinks that anyone in the public puts any credence in what the say anymore. I doubt even the 20-some percent of lingering die-hard supporters in the polls actually believe him, they just support his "whatever-it-takes" approach to their shared agenda.
As far as being above the law, well, that just depends, doesn't it? Are we talking academically or practically? The fact is that these are legislative subpoenas that may or may not be endorsed by a judge. When it comes to subpoenaing the Executive Branch, a supposedly co-equal branch of Government, the court's involvement is likely to look different. It's easy to imagine if the matter goes before this Supreme Court (with its unrestrained Bushite judicial activism), the court is likely to say "forget it." They'll likely tell the Legislature that they won't support a non-Judicial subpoena over a claim of executive privilege, and if the Legislature wants to force action, they have their two Constitutional options: the pursestrings, and of course, impeachment.
(With impeachment "off the table," that frees up the Executive quite a bit, eh?)
All this reminds us that, when the rubber hits the road, much of the functioning of our government depends on an honor system. With Bush and Cheney willfully scrapping both the "system" and "honor," it creates more than a little quandary for the Legislative Branch, now struggling for some semblance of relevence.
Naturally, getting to the hotel in Manchester wasn't as easy as it should've been, but after getting only mildly lost in the driving rain, I arrived late for breakfast and only just in time for John Edwards' scheduled appearence. Fortunately for me, Edwards was on politician time (late), so I got to hear the last extended minutes of Democracy For America President Jim Dean (he of the eerily similar voice to his brother).
(Details on Edwards, Jim Dean, Paul Hodes, Carol Shea-Porter, and the impeachment panel including Jeffry Taylor, Dan DeWalt, Dave Lindorff and Adrienne Kinne below the fold...)
[05-14-07, 1 p.m. There's an update, pulled from the Brattleboro Reformer's report, an accurate soundbite from Peter's response, about 2/3 down below the fold -- NanuqFC]
The basic messages to Rep. Peter Welch at Saturday's White River Junction "town meeting" on impeachment (short, non-repetitive version, exclusive of conspiracy theories and gratuitous heckling): Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable offenses beyond the war in Iraq; your duty to us and to your oath of office is to defend and restore the shredded Constitution and get these guys out; your rationales for avoiding impeachment hold no water.
The basic messages from Rep. Welch to the 200-plus souls in attendance (short, non-repetitive version, exclusive of side issues, litanies of outrages, rephrasings of impeachment as "change direction," and self-serving stories): I agree that B/C have done terrible things to our country; impeachable offenses are whatever 218 Representatives say they are; impeachment is just one tool in the fight for accountability; in my judgment impeachment is the wrong tool because it will delay ending the war; look at all the investigating we're already doing.
Did we change his mind or even cause him to doubt his own entrenchment behind stopping the war first? I doubt it. And, while I hoped that was possible, that's not the only reason I was there.
For those who want exhaustive detail, it's below the fold.
I had to meet a friend for lunch to day in Montpelier, and then sauntered over to the Statehouse to catch the impeachment proceedings in the House. It was defeated, 87-60. I'd like to offer a big thanks to those who stood up for accountability and voted for the resolution. Odum has the roll call here.
Yes, as others have noted, it was inspiring, and it truly was a case of democracy in action. But I left rather angry. And disappointed.
The VT blogosphere was on hand... from who I could see, Norsehorse, Snarky Boy, GMD, Carpetbagger Report and yours truly were all there to report on the carnival. The house was packed, as you can see from the photo I took.
A couple days ago, I put up a diary targeted towards Dems about how grassroots movements like the "Rutland Resolution" wave and the netroots explosion - despite their frustrations - are something to feel good about institutionally. That they are signs of growth. But given the day's events and in recognition of the many non-Dem (even anti-Dem) readers, let me broaden that pep talk a bit.
First and foremost, you did great. Really. Today's skirmish didn't go as hoped, but looking at the roll call, it really looks like (with a few odd exceptions on the edges) the Vermont elected left heard you, and more than just heard you - they agreed. Truth to tell, there were few individual Representatives who were feeling scared or intimidated in their own districts and altered their votes accordingly - the reality is (again with a couple exceptions), those sixty votes were sincere. Through persistence, you broke through the firewall erected to keep you from getting near them, and they stood with you.
And as a matter of reality, none of this was supposed to happen. No House vote, no Senate vote (let alone an overwhelming Senate victory). At the time, some of us were concened that the Senate bill was not a joint resolution, but because of that, the House couldn't shoot it down. The fact is that the Senate Resolution will be sent to Washington. The first and only such resolution like it in the nation. The reverberations are still echoing from that specific victory, and the overall victory you have achieved (an imperfect victory, but a victory nonetheless) will continue to fuel enthusiasm and activism on the issue at the national level with renewed focus and enthusiasm. We all go into the next stage victorious against all predictions, and all of you who worked on it - Dems, non-Dems and anti-Dems alike - should feel great pride and joy. You won. And that's a fact.
Speaker Symington, finally showing the wisdom to get out of the way of the people that the Governor found at his town meeting, has relented and will permit a floor vote on a House impeachment resolution tomorrow, though she intends to vote against it.
Wonderful. And I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but of course, there was no "gift" here. This was the result of hard work. So I'd like to make a few more points before we let the chips fall where they may.
In her statement on the subject, Symington explained her position on the Legislature's earlier vote calling for an immediate withdrawal of American occupation forces from Iraq:
Despite my general reluctance to debate national issues in the Legislature, I supported this debate and the outcome. I am proud that Vermont was the first state to take such a strong stance against the war.
And it was a strong stance against the war occupation. Very strong. So strong, in fact, that it represents a position considerably more aggressive than that taken by the United States Congress itself. Still, it seemed, at the time, necessary and appropriate for the Vermont Legislature to advise them as to the best means of redressing the harm and injustice this administration has brought to our nation and the havoc it has caused beyond our borders. Didn't it?
Those are exactly my words, though. Those are Speaker Symington's words. But not about the troop withdrawal legislation. Save for one word, "advise," those are the words Symington used in her most recent statement to oppose the impeachment resolution. Except in that statement, it was "second guessing," not "advising." I guess it's all in how you look at it.
Rumors attributed simply to 'sources' are reporting that Dennis Kucinich pland to delay the much-hyped scheduled Wednesday introduction of articles of Impeachment against Darth Cheney.
What I don't get is the reasoning behind what the reasons are supposed to be.....or do I?
My speculat-o-matic is going into overdrive on this one.
This diary contains a request for action.
I'm chewing on it below the fold.
I've had enough of people (who purport to be liberal) who can look at an amazing, spontaneous, truly grassroots statewide movement that brings together Dems, Progs, Independents and even the more radical left, and only roll their eyes and see a pain in their ass that will complicate their schedules.
I've had enough of waiting for some real leaders who can take this energy and pull us together - even over disagreements - rather than ignore, scold or berate folks for not shutting up and letting them drive.
I've had enough of people whose support for any officeholder rises and falls on a single issue, or on whether or not that officeholder does things exactly the way you demand they should.
I've had enough of people who are more interested in sticking it to politicians they don't like than to support them in helping people who need it.
I've had enough of attacking the wrong people (especially when those leading the attack, as it were, are merely using the opportunity to promote their own rumored political ambitions, such as this one and this one)
Well, anyone reading this blog knows that the Vermont Democratic State Committee passed an impeachment resolution yesterday.
It was an interesting meeting, beginning with some "dirty tricks" wherein someone claiming to be from the Democratic Party HQ had apparently called the venue and cancelled the reservation sometime during the week. Our new Executive Director, Jill Krowinski, handled the situation admirably, securing the space for the day after a brief discussion with the building supervisor.
The meeting began with Peter Shumlin, President Pro Tempore of the VT Senate, who had some sobering reflections on the Governor's lack of leadership ability. While the Governor is very good at the public face portion of his role (things like ribbon cuttings and other public appearances), he is woefully inadequate at his more important management role, leaving the legislature in the difficult position of having to not only do policy, but to provide the leadership and management that should be the Governor's responsibility.
Some examples provided: On jobs, the Governor has failed to recognize the decline in skiing and maple syrup industries and prepare for the future induced by global climate change. As a result, the Governor has done little to support the creation of a robust alternative energy industry in the state, which could easily supplant the declining industries with the kind of jobs that we really need.
The Governor hasn't created jobs, seems not to understand that next economic revolution will be global warming-related. If VT can get a piece of it, then we will be part of the boom. People will come from out of state for those jobs. This Governor doesn't have the management skills to do it."
He also discussed the way the Governor, rather than "do" anything about the state hospital in Waterbury, relied on the crutch of federal regulations as an excuse for an absurd plan to build a huge hospital, someday, on one of the most expensive pieces of land in the state. A Governor who was a good manager would have made a few phone calls to get a waiver from those regulations - regulations designed for states with very large populations - so a plan appropriate to our small state could be developed. Governor Doesless, unfortunately, failed to figure this out, and instead has proposed another Fletcher-Allen style high-cost boondoggle.
He then went on to dicsuss global climate change, from the perspective of someone who has lived, farmed, and hunted on the same piece of land for half a century. He mentioned that the governor's version of "leadership" on the issue is to say "There's not much Vermont can do," then fly off to China to "advise' them on how to deal with it.
One arresting quote on this topic:
Governor Aiken once said: "Only Vermont could take 4 ft of snow and 20 below and turn it into economic opportunity."
I bet Aiken could never imagine a Vermont that couldn't keep snow on its mountains. "
He ended with a brief mention of impeachment:
If one can have impeachment hearings for an indiscretion, then one should be able to have impeachment hearings for a war that killed many Vermonters, Americans, Iraqis, and others.
He stated that he sympathizes with Speaker Symington's position - the House has a lot of business to address this session, and working people in our citizen legislature need to get back to their real lives in May, it's hard to do it all. But in the final sentence, he said "I personally would like us to do it, but I'm out of the loop with others on that."
After Senator Shumlin's remarks, a discussion of property taxes (worth its own diary), and the usual mundane committee stuff regarding office space, new hires, budget, etc, we came to the impeachment discussion. The discussion was remarkably brief (in stark contrast to the "unusual" discussion in Brattleboro).
Highlights from the discussion and the resolution after the jump:
250-1
75-1
