Tuesday, December 27, 2005


In 1998, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, currently under indictment on corruption charges, proclaimed: "This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law...The other road is the path of least resistance" in which "we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us...[and] close our eyes to the potential lawbreaking...and tear an unfixable hole in our legal system." That arbiter of moral politics was incensed about the possibility of Bill Clinton escaping unpunished for his "crimes."
-- Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation, 12/27/05

[John] Yoo also argued that the Constitution granted the President plenary powers to override the U.N. Convention Against Torture when he is acting in the nation’s defense—a position that has drawn dissent from many scholars. As Yoo saw it, Congress doesn’t have the power to “tie the President’s hands in regard to torture as an interrogation technique.” He continued, “It’s the core of the Commander-in-Chief function. They can’t prevent the President from ordering torture.” If the President were to abuse his powers as Commander-in-Chief, Yoo said, the constitutional remedy was impeachment. He went on to suggest that President Bush’s victory in the 2004 election, along with the relatively mild challenge to Gonzales mounted by the Democrats in Congress, was “proof that the debate is over.”
-- Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, 2/14/05

Via Zemblan patriot J.M.: As you know, the Democrats, who will be running against a party of mendacious, incompetent, and hugely unpopular criminals in '06 and '08, are having a terrible time thinking up a campaign issue on which they might be able to win. We are therefore deeply gratified to see the only-slightly-less-than-respectable liberal press, in the person of Ms. K. vanden Huevel [see above], giving serious consideration to the merits of a strategy that Yr. Mst. Hmbl. Mnrch. has been flogging for some months now:
There are many reasons why it is crucial that the Democrats regain control of Congress in '06, but consider this one: If they do, there may be articles of impeachment introduced and the estimable John Conyers, who has led the fight to defend our constitution, would become Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Wouldn't that be a truly just response to the real high crimes and misdemeanors that this lawbreaking president has so clearly committed?
At this point, even though 53% of Americans polled by Zogby said that they would favor impeachment "if it were proven that Bush had lied about the reasons for invading Iraq," the media are able to pretend that the prospect of impeachment is remote, absurd, unworthy of coverage. They'll continue to do exactly that until the Democrats put forward a couple of candidates who are willing run on a promise to vote for Mr. Bush's impeachment, should it be proven that etc., etc., and the issue begins to show some traction in the polls.

At which point the media lackeys of the GOP will have to stop ignoring these kamikaze candidates in order to smear and belittle them -- but in the process of defending the President's criminality, they'll have to talk about it. Will the White House enjoy that debate?

| | Technorati Links | to Del.icio.us