Saturday, March 04, 2006
The Left's case for impeachment: denying the war
The procedural basis for all of this discussion is House Resolution 635, proposed by John Conyers with almost 30 co-sponsors:
H.RES.635
Title: Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.
Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] (introduced 12/18/2005) Cosponsors (27)
Latest Major Action: 12/18/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
The resolution is based upon the findings of Conyers staff, which has produced a vast report totalling more than 1000 pages that purports to show that the Bush administration has committed numerous impeachable offenses, particularly in connection with the Iraq war. I have not read the Conyers report, but more partisan bloggers of the Right would do well to task it out for response and, where appropriate, refutation.1
The leading "public intellectuals" of the Left are lining up behind the impeachment bandwagon, waiting for a Democratic victory in November. The once-balanced, now shrill, Harper's Magazine has been leading the charge. The March cover (not available online) features editor Lewis H. Lapham's "The Case For Impeachment: Why We Can No Longer Afford George W. Bush." Lapham's piece is a polemical distillation of the Conyers report, and as such it is an archtypical expression of the Left's bitter hatred of the current administration.
There are a thousand points at which opponents and supporters of the Bush administration part company, but Lapham makes clear that a central issue involves the perception of the war, or lack thereof:
"We're at war," the President said on December 19, "we must protect America's secrets."
No, the country isn't at war, and it's not America's secrets that the President seeks to protect. The country is threatened by free-booting terrorists unaligned with a foreign government or an enemy army; the secrets are those of the Bush administration, chief among them its determination to replace a democratic republic with something more safely totalitarian. The fiction of permanent war allows it to seize, in the name of national security, the instruments of tyranny.
Well, I certainly agree that if the country is not at war, the administration's actions are awfully suspicious. Lapham's definition of war, though, defies our normal understanding of history. For the thousand years between the fall of the Roman empire in the West and the emergence of France as the first genuine nation in Europe, violent conflict involved -- essentially -- "free-booting terrorists unaligned with a foreign government or an enemy army." Was the incessant fighting of that millenium not war because no governments were involved? This idea that war is confined to nation-states is a fiction of the Left, intended to define away the all the possible explanations for the administration's actions that aren't nefarious.
The problem, of course, is that we are at war, as staunch Democratic critics
of the Bush administration remind us every chance they get.______________________________________
1. Frankly, this is a project ideally suited to the blogosphere. A righty Army of Davids
could probably do a lot of damage to the Conyers report, subject to defense by a lefty Army. It would be a fascinating exercise in distributed analysis.10 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Sat Mar 04, 02:37:00 PM:
Maybe if we could just get a little oversight, then we wouldn't need to launch impeachment hearings just to get some straight answers from this secretive administration.
NSA Wiretapping, Torture, Misleading the nation in the runup to the failed War in Iraq...
These sound like they might be criminal, but until congressional republicans are prepared to discuss these issues based on facts and laws we loony lefties will just have to go with what we see.
Impeachment? I don't know. I'd settle for some honesty at this point.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Sat Mar 04, 04:15:00 PM:
Anytime the US has 100,000 troops in a hostile country, that's a war. But I see that as the Iraq war, not the "war on terror". So I gotta ask, do you see these as 2 wars or only 1? What about Afghanistan? Part of the Iraq war, part of the GWOT, or it's own war?
While you're at it, please opine on the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Christmas", cause some of us can't keep all these wars straight. Be sure to tie in more Dark Ages references as they are not only pertinent, but also illustrative. Maybe you could ask the Army of Davids could put together a war org chart before we invade the next country?
Sorry. I can't stay serious on this. Impeachment is just silly. The entire Dem caucus couldn't impeach Bush, let alone 20% of it. It's just fodder for the partisan bases to gnash their teeth on. But gnash away, no doubt your opposition will. Train wreck indeed. If only people were sensible and realistic. But what do I know? Maybe it's better to all waste our time rather than focusing on governance.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Mar 04, 04:56:00 PM:
There is no such thing as an "impeachable offense." The President can be impeached for whatever reason a suitable majority of the House can agree on.
I also find it a little amusing that the magezine article says, "No, the country isn't at war," but the proposed resolution says "intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence."
To bad the vast, left wing conspiracy can't get their story straight. They'll never succeed at this rate.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sat Mar 04, 07:46:00 PM:
Um...Nicholson was the...um...bad guy in that movie. You're telling me I should be like the bad guy or just bow down to the bad guy?
By 
, at
Sat Mar 04, 09:41:00 PM:
Jeff M:
"Somehow I think that you missed the point of the movie."
So, just to be absolutely clear: you watched A Few Good Men and really, seriously believed the "point of the movie" was that Nicholson's character was the embattled good guy? You're not joking, or subtly mocking conservatarian attitudes to film?
By TigerHawk, at
Sat Mar 04, 09:53:00 PM:
It is interesting to think about A Few Good Men. One could tweak that movie only slightly, and Col. Jessep would be the good guy. Would Good Men have been a different film if it had been made in, say, 2002? And then again in 2006? Almost worthy of its own blog post...
By Gordon Smith, at
Sun Mar 05, 08:45:00 AM:
The political right, closely affiliated in recent years with the religious right, has embraced violence well outside the scope of the Savior's teachings. I just can't imagine Jesus screaming at Tom Cruise, "You can't handle the truth!"
As a lefty in politics and religion, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that the more violent we are, the better off we'll be. I accept that some violence may sometimes be necessary in one's own defense, but Iraq required an invasion like Tommy Chong requires another bong hit.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sun Mar 05, 10:35:00 PM:
"choices that perhaps viewed in retrospect under cross examination in a court of law appear to have been incorrect or unlawful."
Perhaps? appear?
No matter what happens next, you've decided that Bush made the "right decisions at the time"? Well that settles that, I suppose.
I think you also said that a good justification for the unnecessary war in Iraq is that now we have a heckuva front for future war against Iran?
I'm not sneering, big guy. I'm alarmed. Maybe when you look at people and think they're sneering, you ought to ask them if they're alarmed. Just a thought.
Violence is not a disease, it's a behavior, and I suppose we'll be eradicating any behaviors any time soon, terrorism included. I'm just one of the wacked out minority who'd like to see folks in charge at least pretend they're trending towards increased peace rather than planning for endless war.
I guess that's a difference between us, Jeff. You look at the world and see the potential for unending conflict, and I look at the world and see the potential for prosperous peace.
By Gordon Smith, at
Mon Mar 06, 09:22:00 AM:
Liberals believe people are inherently good or have the capability of living lives of mutual respect.
You, and maybe your ilk, believe that humans are bad and have to kill each other because their lizard brains tell them to.
Given the choice, I'll take the former every day of the week. Pointing at the history of war doesn't make it inevitable. This way of thinking is known as pursuing an ideal. Your way of thinking is cynical, callous, and sells humanity short. But you just keep on, Jeff, maybe you'll get the all out war you long for.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Mon Mar 06, 12:37:00 PM:
If A Few Good Men were made today it would probably revolve around the story of Spc. Sean Baker (find your own link). Gimto soldier maimed by peers under questionable orders...it's so similar already.
I think the central issue includes not only the perception of war but also the desire for it. Some people want war, some don't. Such people will argue, call each other names, and pull silly political (impeachment) stunts.
Special thanks to Jeff for the Dark Ages reference.
