Column: "They Don't Have the Guts to Impeach Bush"

There was a time when I desperately hoped Maxine Waters would run for president. My plan was to drop whatever else was in the pipeline – columns, books, gainful employment, anything – and dedicate every waking moment to the complete intellectual vivisection of her unfortunate career. For this I was prepared to take the battle of ideas to any forum that would have me, from television and radio to stump speeches and livestock auctions, until her campaign became a quivering mass of disjointed stabs in the dark. Which would have taken about four weeks – five tops. Alas, this dream candidacy never materialized, though thankfully I was able to dedicate my spare time to the scraps left over by equal disasters named Gore, Kucinich, Sharpton and Dean.

Once in awhile, though, Representative Waters throws a bone. Here she is on 31 January: “If a president’s untruthfulness about sexual relationships is an impeachable offense, then surely spying on American citizens, undermining the Constitution and contravening current standing law are impeachable offenses.” At first I thought, I wonder who taught her the word “contravene.” Then I thought roughly these things, in roughly this order.

During the History Channel’s otherwise brilliant special about Abraham Lincoln, Gore Vidal went on at some length about presidential powers. Lincoln’s suspending habeas corpus, closing newspapers sympathetic to the Confederacy and imprisoning unfriendlies (many just casually unfriendly) were all justified by the Constitution in a time of war. Unlike later, Vidal continued, when a certain unnamed president took actions outside Constitutional boundaries; we are not, as a matter of fact, at war. “The war on terror is like a war on dandruff. It’s a metaphor. The Civil War was serious.”

Count me among those believing Vidal’s relevance is a Great Wonder of the World, but I agree with him to this extent: You cannot fight a “war against terror” because terror is an emotional state. President Bush fights terrorists and terrorism, a charge not so much chosen as thrust upon him. Republicans believe the president’s efforts against terrorists are far reaching and important enough to warrant Constitutional protection, Democrats don’t. Republicans believe the 14 September 2001 resolution gives Bush the authority to pursue terrorists in the ways he has pursued them, Democrats don’t. Republicans believe the United States Signals Intelligence Directive gives the administration the authority to tap certain phone calls, Democrats don’t. (Doubtless most people have never read either USSID or the resolution in question.) And there’s no changing anyone’s mind – in fact, a few Democratic legislators are starting to believe NSA wiretapping is an impeachable offense.

People should understand why the discussion arises – because the Constitution offers no other recourse if a president breaks the law – but should also know they’re right to roll their eyes. Impeachment here seems like quite a stretch. Obviously Richard Nixon would have been impeached had he not resigned, though few remember those who wanted to impeach Carter after his failed attempt to rescue the American hostages in Iran; Reagan for Iran Contra; Bush for prosecuting the Persian Gulf War. When everyone should be impeached, it loses its effectiveness.

Clearly Democrats are struggling to formulate a uniform response to wiretapping, but two things stand in their way. One: Wiretapping is popular. Americans want their enemies watched, be they confirmed or suspected, period. Two: Democrats are in a position to make substantive gains this November; the idea of impeachment before or after the midterm elections could hurt their chances. They are against wiretapping, but softly, sending only resident fools to mention impeachment (e.g., Boxer, Waters, Lewis, Dean), fearing that anything stronger will spoil a real electoral opportunity. Clinton’s boy-themed excesses set the Democratic party back 11 years and would have cost it a generation if not for newly minted Republican excesses.

Even Harry Reid knows what’s at stake. “I’m not a big fan of impeachment. I think it should come only when all other avenues have been exhausted and that certainly hasn’t been the case here …. I think we’re way above the radar screen. I think impeachment this time is not something we need to talk about. I think we need to talk about the other failures of government and I don’t think we need to go rushing off to the ‘I’ word.” He may not have a grip on the real world, but Senator Reid understands politics.

Democrats are struck by the notion of passivity being to their benefit, but have too much to lose. They don’t have the guts to impeach Bush – now or ever.

07 February 2006