Responsibility in Washington
Dennis Hastert said he accepted full responsibility for the Mark Foley scandal. Donald Rumsfeld said he accepted full responsibility for the Abu Grahib scandal. George Bush said he accepted full responsibility for Katrina, Dubai Ports, the record deficit and the war in Iraq. These statements beg the question: just what does accepting responsibility mean in our nation’s capital? After six long years of the Bush administration, the answer would seem obvious. Accepting responsibility in Washington means getting away with murder.
Other than finally giving the boot to Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush, who has never held anyone in his administration truly accountable for the failures of his office, still appears unwilling to take the kind of corrective measures one might expect after seeing his party lose the Congress. By any standard, the Bush Administration has clearly been one of the most irresponsible regimes in the nation’s history. The president and party that were swept into office promising to restore ethics, integrity and fiscal discipline to Washington have plunged the country into a muck heap of unprecedented depths.
The Foley scandal investigation, which exonerated Republican leadership for ethical lapses in covering up their colleague's behavior, was an instructive demonstration of the Republican party’s most insidious character – party loyalty above the law, party loyalty above the welfare of the country, party loyalty above even its own professed morals.
Now that the prospects for a fundamental change in the Congress have materialized, the party that has controlled the country for over six years has expressed fear of the inevitable hearings that will seek to hold the GOP and its representative in the executive branch accountable for the state of the nation; to hold them, in a word, responsible.
An impeachment of the president has been summarily removed from consideration by the new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. The framers of our Constitution, ever wary about replacing a king with a powerful president, devised impeachment as a way for the People's representatives to hold the chief executive accountable for his deeds; to provide a remedy in the event of treason or severe violation of public office.
Many would argue that a number of acts in domestic and foreign policy that have emmanated from the Bush White House could be construed as fitting the definition of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" envisioned by the founders as the criteria for impeachment. Yet, the road to impeaching Mr. Bush when looked at critically yields a number of perilous absurdities. The prospect of a President Cheney taking the reins of the government would certainly be unpalatable for the administration's critics. Considering the fact that the vice-President could be charged with complicity in many of the crimes Mr. Bush would be charged with, the country could theorectically be faced with the possibility of a double impeachment and the ascension to office of President Pelosi as the speaker of the House. The prospect of such a Constitutional coup d'etat may be why Mrs. Pelosi said impeachment is "off the table."
Only two U.S. presidents have been impeached -- Andrew Johnson in 1868 for attempting to dismiss his Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton in violation of the Tenure of Office Act, and Bill Clinton in 1998 for lying about a consensual love affair. Though the country may indeed have to bear another few years of the Bush Administration, it is useful to remember what Mr. Bush and his party accomplished while they held power: They ran up the largest budget deficit in American history; they endorsed the destruction of the nation’s pension system and attempted to radically alter Social Security; they brazenly bartered government influence and misused the privileges of the majority party to deny the opposition its role in legislative oversight; they denuded regulatory safeguards and laws that protect our environment; they manipulated the fear of terrorism to condition the public into accepting the dilution of fundamental Constitutional rights, such as the right to privacy, and the right of habeus corpus; they revealed the name of a covert CIA agent in an act of political revenge that was clearly against the law; they sanctioned the use of torture contrary to international agreements and held prisoners in detention without legal protections; they demonstrated mind-numbing incompetence and ineptitude in mishandling one of the worst natural disasters in the nation's history; they ignored warnings about the potential threat of a terrorist attack on American cities and then watched it happen. Most significantly, they embarked on a foreign war based upon false premises -- a war which has taken the lives of over 3,000 Americans, has cost the nation close to half trillion dollars, has destablized the entire Middle East and is insuring the propogation of legions of the same terrorists the administration has pledged to destroy.
As we were reminded during the Clinton years, impeachment is a lengthy process that can cripple the country. Neither party seems to have the stomach for it, especially while we have soldiers fighting overseas. Last March, Senator Russ Feingold tried unsuccessfully to get a resolution passed that would have censured President Bush for ordering the NSA to wiretap domestic phone conversations. At the time, though there was a clear consensus that the President's actions violated the law, Republican opponents killed the censure proposal charging that the Wisconsin senator's move was an unconscionable attack on the nation's commander-in-chief during a time of war. Few seemed to be bothered by the disturbing implication that to insulate an administration from serious scrutiny or oversight, all a president would have to do would be to initiate a military action.
It is evident that the Founding Fathers considered impeachment an optional remedy rather than an obligatory mandate. Yet, as Mr. Bush now contemplates how long the country has to continue sacrificing it's soldiers in what most agree is an unwinnable and falsely conceived military venture, one cannot help but wonder if the Congress would be shirking it's Constitutional responsibilities if it does not at least bring articles of impeachment to the floor. Jefferson said it best: when a government becomes destructive, it is the duty of the citizens to alter or abolish it.
Dennis Hastert said he accepted full responsibility for the Mark Foley scandal. Donald Rumsfeld said he accepted full responsibility for the Abu Grahib scandal. George Bush said he accepted full responsibility for Katrina, Dubai Ports, the record deficit and the war in Iraq. These statements beg the question: just what does accepting responsibility mean in our nation’s capital? After six long years of the Bush administration, the answer would seem obvious. Accepting responsibility in Washington means getting away with murder.
Other than finally giving the boot to Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush, who has never held anyone in his administration truly accountable for the failures of his office, still appears unwilling to take the kind of corrective measures one might expect after seeing his party lose the Congress. By any standard, the Bush Administration has clearly been one of the most irresponsible regimes in the nation’s history. The president and party that were swept into office promising to restore ethics, integrity and fiscal discipline to Washington have plunged the country into a muck heap of unprecedented depths.
The Foley scandal investigation, which exonerated Republican leadership for ethical lapses in covering up their colleague's behavior, was an instructive demonstration of the Republican party’s most insidious character – party loyalty above the law, party loyalty above the welfare of the country, party loyalty above even its own professed morals.
Now that the prospects for a fundamental change in the Congress have materialized, the party that has controlled the country for over six years has expressed fear of the inevitable hearings that will seek to hold the GOP and its representative in the executive branch accountable for the state of the nation; to hold them, in a word, responsible.
An impeachment of the president has been summarily removed from consideration by the new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. The framers of our Constitution, ever wary about replacing a king with a powerful president, devised impeachment as a way for the People's representatives to hold the chief executive accountable for his deeds; to provide a remedy in the event of treason or severe violation of public office.
Many would argue that a number of acts in domestic and foreign policy that have emmanated from the Bush White House could be construed as fitting the definition of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" envisioned by the founders as the criteria for impeachment. Yet, the road to impeaching Mr. Bush when looked at critically yields a number of perilous absurdities. The prospect of a President Cheney taking the reins of the government would certainly be unpalatable for the administration's critics. Considering the fact that the vice-President could be charged with complicity in many of the crimes Mr. Bush would be charged with, the country could theorectically be faced with the possibility of a double impeachment and the ascension to office of President Pelosi as the speaker of the House. The prospect of such a Constitutional coup d'etat may be why Mrs. Pelosi said impeachment is "off the table."
Only two U.S. presidents have been impeached -- Andrew Johnson in 1868 for attempting to dismiss his Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton in violation of the Tenure of Office Act, and Bill Clinton in 1998 for lying about a consensual love affair. Though the country may indeed have to bear another few years of the Bush Administration, it is useful to remember what Mr. Bush and his party accomplished while they held power: They ran up the largest budget deficit in American history; they endorsed the destruction of the nation’s pension system and attempted to radically alter Social Security; they brazenly bartered government influence and misused the privileges of the majority party to deny the opposition its role in legislative oversight; they denuded regulatory safeguards and laws that protect our environment; they manipulated the fear of terrorism to condition the public into accepting the dilution of fundamental Constitutional rights, such as the right to privacy, and the right of habeus corpus; they revealed the name of a covert CIA agent in an act of political revenge that was clearly against the law; they sanctioned the use of torture contrary to international agreements and held prisoners in detention without legal protections; they demonstrated mind-numbing incompetence and ineptitude in mishandling one of the worst natural disasters in the nation's history; they ignored warnings about the potential threat of a terrorist attack on American cities and then watched it happen. Most significantly, they embarked on a foreign war based upon false premises -- a war which has taken the lives of over 3,000 Americans, has cost the nation close to half trillion dollars, has destablized the entire Middle East and is insuring the propogation of legions of the same terrorists the administration has pledged to destroy.
As we were reminded during the Clinton years, impeachment is a lengthy process that can cripple the country. Neither party seems to have the stomach for it, especially while we have soldiers fighting overseas. Last March, Senator Russ Feingold tried unsuccessfully to get a resolution passed that would have censured President Bush for ordering the NSA to wiretap domestic phone conversations. At the time, though there was a clear consensus that the President's actions violated the law, Republican opponents killed the censure proposal charging that the Wisconsin senator's move was an unconscionable attack on the nation's commander-in-chief during a time of war. Few seemed to be bothered by the disturbing implication that to insulate an administration from serious scrutiny or oversight, all a president would have to do would be to initiate a military action.
It is evident that the Founding Fathers considered impeachment an optional remedy rather than an obligatory mandate. Yet, as Mr. Bush now contemplates how long the country has to continue sacrificing it's soldiers in what most agree is an unwinnable and falsely conceived military venture, one cannot help but wonder if the Congress would be shirking it's Constitutional responsibilities if it does not at least bring articles of impeachment to the floor. Jefferson said it best: when a government becomes destructive, it is the duty of the citizens to alter or abolish it.
Comments