Signs of Fear at the White House

[Demeter]

September 14, 2006

Signs of Fear at the White House

By Dave Lindorff


Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dave_lin_060914_signs_of_fear_at_the.htm




One might think this to be a case of a powerful president just steamrolling the courts and the Congress, but I think it is not a sign of strength, but rather the desperate act of a man who sees impeachment in his future, and who is acting while he can to try to cover up a few of his crimes.
For while the list of this president's crimes against the Constitution, the Republic and the People of the United States is long and ugly, the truth is that the two areas where he is the most vulnerable to impeachment are precisely the two that he is working so hard now to make go away: the warrantless NSA spying program and the abuse of the detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere.
This is because the president has already been found, in the first instance by a federal district court judge, and in the second by the full Supreme Court, to be a criminal (if you violate the law, you are by definition a criminal). It's just that as president he cannot simply be indicted and put on trial. That's why we have impeachment.

Bush and his legal adviser, the ethically and morally challenged Attorney General Alberto Golzales, who heads what is still officially called the "Justice" Department, but which has become more of an Enabling Department at this point, both know that if the House of Representatives is captured by the Democrats in November (only 15 seats need to change hands), there almost certainly will be impeachment hearings against the president. They know too that even Republican control of the Senate is at risk, which would make changing laws in his favor impossible.
This means that if they want to change the laws so that the president's crimes against the Constitution can be retroactively made legal, the sleight-of-hand needs to be completed in the next eight weeks, while the Republicans are firmly in charge of both houses of Congress.

The good news is that it probably won't work.



That said, the Democratic Party is making a huge and historic mistake by urging Congressional Democrats to sit on their hands while Republicans debate these crucial issues, and by having campaigning candidates for Congress duck the issue of President Bush's impeachable crimes. First of all, it is insulting the intelligence of the American voter for Democrats to pretend, as does House minority leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), that impeachment will be "off the table" if Democrats retake the House in November. Of course Democrats will hold impeachment hearings in November; they will have to, if only to challenge the president's claim that he can ignore acts of Congress by issuing "signing statements."

Second, it is simply stupid politics. For over a year, the Democratic leadership has been flailing around trying to find a rallying cry that could energize and excite the Democratic base to increase voter turnout this November. So far this effort has been a dismal failure. Unable to take a stand on Iraq, they have turned to their usual grab-bag of failed "wedge" mini-issues--stem cell research, education funding, gas prices and the like-all to little effect. And yet here's impeachment is staring them in the face. An overwhelming majority of Democrats want this president impeached-for the Iraq War, for defiling the constitution, for messing up in New Orleans, for authorizing torture, and for being a dolt. Polls suggest that a majority of all voters and a sizeable chunk of Republican voters agree, if for different reasons (many genuine conservatives are aghast at the president's trashing of the constitution).





Authors Website: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

Authors Bio: Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net


THERE'S MUCH MORE TO READ THAT I HAD TO CUT! RECOMMENDED FOR ITS SUCCINCT SUMMATIONS!

[yellowcanine]

1. Atheists on the plane! The horror!

[CJCRANE]

2. It's time

for the non-religious to stand up and proclaim Western secular values and human rights before the RW fundamentalists spark off a war with the rest of the world.

[evlbstrd]

3. "You must listen to their beliefs."

I've had this argument so many times. Atheism is not a belief. Religion is.

[bhikkhu]

8. Technically speaking atheism is a "negative belief"

or a belief that there is no god, which is psychologically a similar posture to believing that there is one.

A professor of mine years ago (science) had a definition of belief I am fond of - "belief is the suspension of critical thinking".

Agnosticism, on the other hand, does not believe in God nor disbelieve, as a rigorous proof of evidence does not (or cannot) appear on either side.

[evlbstrd]

10. Maybe I've been arguing for the wrong position.

Atheism is from the Greek, "a-" without and "-theos" god. The non-belief, for me, is a shorter walk than the belief.
So I move from atheist to agnostic. The end is the same. No proof either way.

[stopbush]

4. What the world needs is a New Age of Enlightenment,

not bush's stupid Third Great Awakening.

[cliss]

7. True words spoken.

We need to wake up, and change the system that allows Rogues like Bush, Cheney & Rumsfailed to ride roughshod over the rest of us.

We need to fix aristocracies which create people like George Bush, wiping his glasses on someone's sweater, driving his car into a garage, and walking away from every mess he has ever created.

When we have a new Age of Enlightenment, these things will come to an end.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Sometimes, in my more paranoid moments, I think that the entire

"Impeach Clinton" schtick was a set-up -- that they knew what was coming up and they were preparing a
"tit-for-tat" defense against the chimp's impeachment. Of course, to do so they would have to have known that Gore, or whoever the Dem candidate would be, was going to lose...

[peace13]

6. Yes there are atheists among us

Watch for them. You will find many of them treating others with human kindness. Living a life where killing, cheating, and stealing are wrong. You will find them helping those who are less fortunate. You will also witness them trying to create a world that is safe for all, regardless of religious belief. It is such a pity. We must stop them!

[Marrak]

9. Impeach the Bush-War Administration...

they've provided the country nothing five years out from 911 but criminal acts, incompetence and bile...

<>

[applegrove]

11. I disagree. Course I am Canadian. So it is none of my business.

But Americans elected these goons. And the longer the goons are in power...the more Americans will wake up. If GOP looses the House..then Dems can have comittee after comittee and impeachment may be the only logical outcome. But for now..it is better that the puppet with no clothes prances around in the name of the moderates who elected him twice.. and they, those moderates, can learn from that.

There is nothing like being manipulated and manipulated again..to become wise on who you are and what you value most...and how not to let yourself be manipulated again.

If Bush is impeached..all that is left is delusional Cheney & co. and then they will unleash hell.

I think impeachment should be off the table unless the facts line up to leave no other alternative. And they may very well. But now is not the time.

[GetTheRightVote]

13. 1st elections stolen so not elected, next impeach them all

the evil must be punished period.

:kick:

[applegrove]

14. Sorry we disagree. Though first election was won by bait & switch.

They claimed it was won by Repukes..then debased the process of recounts so much.. it disgusted Gore into ceding the fight. Very sad for you.

Still..I think the mods will learn more from having * lead them for another two years.. especially when the House is Dem.

[yurbud]

12. I can only think of one half legit reason for Dems passivity

I still don't agree with it, but at it's the only one that makes sense besides cowardice and corruption:

If they hit the GOP and their relevant patrons HARD before the election, and the Dems got the poll numbers they would rightly deserve for such an attack, it would be even more clear to the GOP that they couldn't win or even get close enough to steal the election without raising too many questions.

If that were the case, given the GOP propensity to strong-arm elections, exploit terrorism, and smear opponents, they would likely do everything to prevent losing power from terror attacks, to assassinations, to suspending democracy.

Therefore, the Democrats may want to win by more than the margin that the GOP can steal, but less than what would be an obvious landslide before people even vote, which would push the GOP into full violent fascist mode (they're only about two-thirds there now).

That's kind of dancing between the raindrops though, and if that's what they are doing, it would be better to play the cards openly, force the GOP to do stupid things, and the American people will turn on them that much sooner. I thought this is what they should have done with the GOP's stupid threat of the "nuclear option" on Alito. Fine. Let them do it. What do most people think of someone who changes the rules because they are losing? And what if those rules are one of the checks and balances built into our system?

Maybe the Democrats know something about how far these guys will go that the rest of us only guess at. I doubt it though.

[samsingh]

15. i think there's terror in the white house

fun to see in the gop, but they will play dirty and illegal to stay in power so they don't have to go to jail .