G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Can Congress End the War? Democratic Leaders May Prefer to Claim They Tried
But Failed
By David Swanson
Created Mar 5 2007 - 8:50am
- first posted at TomDispatch [1]
The shortest route to ending the Iraq war (and preventing additional wars)
is almost certainly through Congress. Influencing the White House directly
is unimaginable, and stopping the war through the courts unlikely. Clearly,
Congress is the way to go. But what specifically can Congress do?
How We Got Here
The peace movement lobbied a Republican Congress without success for four
years. Then, on November 7, 2006, the American public elected a Democratic
Congress in a clear mandate delivered at the polls. Not a single new
Republican was elected, and 30 new Democrats were ushered in, with voters
overwhelmingly telling pollsters that they were voting against the war; and
by "against the war," they meant "against the war," not "against the
escalation." Remember, the President's "surge" into Baghdad had not yet been
announced.
Voters also appeared to be voting for accountability and possibly for the
launching of impeachment hearings [2] as well. Polls prior to the election
found that a majority of Americans believed a Democratic Congress would
impeach. Candidates who campaigned on the theme of accountability, including
Keith Ellison (Dem., Minnesota) who promised impeachment, did well. Polls
show that a majority [3] of Americans favor impeachment or wish [4] Bush's
presidency were over. Voters in November even booted out a couple of
Republicans who had turned against the war, saying that they were voting for
a Democratic majority so that the Democrats could investigate the war as
well as end it -- something a majority of Americans continue to say [5] they
want.
Prior to the election, Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi had already ordered the
Democrats in the House to oppose impeachment, but she had not ordered them
to support the war. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC),
chaired by Congressman Rahm Emanuel, however, directed most of its financial
support to candidates [6] who did not call for ending the war. Of the 22
candidates funded by the DCCC, only 8 won [7]. The rest of the victorious
Democratic challengers, many of them strongly opposed to the war, got
themselves elected without Emanuel's help.
Halfway Steps in the House
Of course, now that the election is over and the Democratic leadership has
heard the people speak so clearly, now that, on January 27th, half a million
Americans encircled the Capitol in opposition to the war, now that the new
Congress has in its hands the power that the Republicans had a year ago,
surely ending the war is at the top of its agenda.
Well, not according to Emanuel's way of thinking, as reported in the
Washington Post [8]:
"For the rest of the year, Emanuel says, the leadership hopes to stress
energy independence (with fuel-saving efficiency standards for appliances
and cars) and a move toward better health care for children. And here's what
Emanuel doesn't want to do: fall into the political trap of chasing
overambitious or potentially unpopular measures. Ask about universal health
care, and he shakes his head... Reform of Social Security and other
entitlements? Too big, too woolly, too risky... The country is angry, and it
will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don't look to
Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it
splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up
the pieces."
So, clearly the question before us is not just what Congress can do to end
the war, but also how the American public can persuade a Democratic Congress
to want to end the war. Most Republican members of Congress still follow
White House orders like sheep, and leading House Democrat Emanuel is openly
telling the media that he'd just as soon have the war still going on in
2008. The war has cost an estimated 655,000 Iraqi lives and over 3,000
American ones in its first 4 years, with the death rate increasing over
time, so by a safe estimate Emanuel has just written off perhaps another few
hundred thousand lives for the sake of an electoral strategy.
Prior to the recent Congressional recess, Congressman Jack Murtha proposed
[9] that he draft a new bill, agreeing to throw $93 billion or so at the war
in the form of another "emergency supplemental" outside the regular federal
budget. That may not sound like an anti-war proposal, but it certainly
passed for one in Washington, D.C. In fact, Murtha was pilloried by
Republicans and much of the media because he proposed including requirements
that troops be properly rested, trained, and equipped before being sent to
Iraq. Murtha argued that these requirements would force Bush to end his
"surge."
In a climate in which opposition to the "surge" had become confused with
opposition to the war, Murtha's plan was, amazingly enough, treated [10] as
the near equivalent of pacifism. And no strong defense of it emerged from
the Democratic leadership. Instead the plan evolved into a proposal to
require the President to inform Congress when he was deploying troops
lacking adequate rest, training, or equipment. But it is unclear how this
would even curtail the present escalation, much less end the war, and there
has been no indication of what Congress would do if Bush failed to obey this
reporting requirement.
Bizarrely, this whole discussion has taken place without any reference to
the fact that, in November 2003, Congress passed the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, which placed limits on the number of
days that a member of the Armed Forces could be deployed. Bush signed that
bill into law, but added a signing statement announcing [11] his intention
to disregard that section. The U.S. Constitution gives the President the
power to sign bills into law and enforce them, or to veto them. There is no
constitutional middle course. Yet Bush has routinely used signing statements
to announce [12] his plans to disregard portions of bills he signs into law.
This abuse might be addressed by impeachment proceedings, something the
Democrats are not currently considering. But short of addressing this abuse,
Congress Members could at least behave as though they were aware of it.
Wholehearted House Actions
Numerous peace and justice organizations seeking to end the war are urging
Congress Members to vote "no" on the $93 billion supplemental bill. At the
same time, they are watching closely for possible amendments to the bill
that could require the money be spent on a rapid withdrawal. Such amendments
might be introduced and voted on in the House Appropriations Committee, on
which Congresswoman Barbara Lee (Dem., California) serves, along with
Murtha, or they might be introduced and voted on in the full House.
If a bill provided billions of dollars for the war but required that it all
be spent on the withdrawal of troops, and if such a bill passed both houses
of Congress, the President would be unable to veto it without denying
himself a source of funding he badly wants. And there is at least a chance
that Congress would take umbrage and pay attention if he cancelled the end
of the war with another of his signing statements.
Other possibilities for ending the war in the House include not passing a
supplemental bill at all, or passing one of the four bills that have been
introduced (by Representatives Lynn Woolsey, Jim McGovern, Jerrold Nadler,
and Dennis Kucinich) that would use the power of the purse to try to bring
the war to an end. There are also several bills that would instruct the
President to end the war while continuing to fund it, an approach that seems
more likely to pass both houses of Congress, but far less likely to achieve
anything close to their stated goal.
Senator Russ Feingold held hearings [13] in January on the constitutional
power of the Congress to end a war. One point on which there seems to be
consensus: Congress has the Constitutional power to control what money is
spent on (even if that power has hardly been touched in any meaningful way
in recent years). If Congress says no more money can be spent on the war,
then that is the law of the land -- although the history of the Iran-Contra
scandal [14], the secret beginning [15] of the current Iraq War, and
operations now underway in Iran remind us that the law of the land and the
acts of the White House can sometimes be two separate matters.
Congressman Kucinich's bill is brand new. The other three House bills have
been in play for some weeks. While Congressman Nadler's bill does not have
the support among his colleagues that Woolsey's and McGovern's do (thanks to
both friendships and political alliances), Nadler has perhaps done the best
job of crafting a bill in which Congress could make use of its undisputed
power to end the war. While the other two bills first instruct Bush to end
the war in a specific period of time, and only afterward forbid the use of
additional funds for the war that is now theoretically over, Nadler's bill
immediately restricts the use of any money appropriated by Congress to
withdrawing the troops from Iraq.
Actually, Nadler's bill restricts the use of funds to protecting the troops
and withdrawing them. He admits that the "protecting the troops" part is a
bit of nonsense, since the only way to protect them is to withdraw them. But
all of these bills have been written with a keen eye to repelling the
commonplace criticism that bringing our troops safely home somehow
constitutes a failure to "support the troops."
Senate Shortcomings and Opportunities
A new sideways approach to ending the war without saying you're ending it is
only now emerging in the Senate. This one involves "reauthorizing" the war.
This war was, of course, never declared but pre-authorized to be launched at
the President's discretion for the purpose of eliminating Iraq's mythical
weapons of mass destruction and combating those falsely alleged to have been
behind the attacks of 9-11. The facts have already repealed that
authorization, but it would be useful for Congress to do so as well.
Actually reauthorizing the war, on the other hand, would undoubtedly be less
useful, as it might appear to the public to be support for the war; while
any aspects of the reauthorization aimed at slowly ending the war will
surely be viciously attacked by the administration and its supporters. In
fact, that's already begun. The White House is denouncing any attempts to
restrict the war as "micromanagement" and Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice has announced that Bush will probably disregard [16] restrictions
placed on the war by Congress. Rice was asked in a broadcast interview
whether the President would feel bound by legislation seeking to withdraw
combat troops within 120 days. "The president is going to, as commander in
chief, need to do what the country needs done," she replied. This brazenly
unconstitutional stance is another one of those "details" -- like Bush's
past signing statements -- that Congress might do well to bear in mind and
cease trying to ignore.
There are a couple of possible ways the Senate might get around this. One
would simply be not to pass the Pentagon's supplemental spending bill --
something that 41 Senators could accomplish through a filibuster. The other
would be to pass Senator Russ Feingold's bill [17] to stop funding the war,
which would obviously require a far higher voting hurdle than that
filibuster. Passing a bill would involve gathering a majority -- and
overriding a veto to maintain it, a two-thirds vote in both houses. The
filibuster, however, presents another kind of hurdle in that it requires
some Senator or group of Senators to find the decency and courage to begin
it, uncertain of success.
Legislating a Unitary Executive
What is lost in all of these strategy discussions, of course, is the
question of whether any sort of Congressional cut-off of funds would
actually truncate either the surge or the war. Remember, the President and
Vice President began the preparations for the invasion of Iraq secretly with
at least $2.5 billion [18] illegally taken from other areas. They have
promised never to end the war. They have asserted the power of a "unitary
executive." They have launched pre-war operations in Iran without any
authorization [19] or funding from Congress. They have built permanent bases
in Iraq without any approval from Congress, and continued that construction
work in violation of a bill [20] passed by Congress forbidding the use of
any funding for it.
So, the question is not just whether Congress can cut off the money, but
whether the Bush administration can find enough money in other places
illegally to continue a war that has never in any sense been legal. The
amount of money we're talking about is enormous, but it is a fraction of the
Pentagon's budget, and it seems clear that -- given the kinds of "black
budget" moneys floating around in that world -- the war could be continued
for some time (long enough at least to gin up a new enemy to scare Congress
with); that is, unless the military sides with Congress in this dispute and
refuses [21] to pursue the war with misappropriated funds.
If any of these strategies to end the war come to fruition in Congress, a
more likely outcome than an actual end to the war would be a full-scale
confrontation with the "commander-in-chief" presidency of George Bush (and
the vice-presidency of Dick Cheney), leading to possible impeachment
proceedings.
Here's the reality, however: None of these strategies are likely to advance
very far very soon. A movement for impeachment now might strengthen the hand
of those in Congress who want to move on ending the war. During the Vietnam
War, the peace and impeachment efforts aided each other. And the Democrats
then won the next elections, something they failed to do after choosing not
to pursue impeachment proceedings against Ronald Reagan for the Iran-Contra
scandal.
What Could Change
Two events on the horizon might change this outlook. One is an attack on
Iran [22]. Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers have said they favor
launching the impeachment process if the Bush administration attacks Iran.
Needless to say, it would be better to begin proceedings to impeach in order
to prevent an attack on Iran, but that is unlikely in the present political
atmosphere.
The other event that could take us all surprising places is the completion
of the trial of I. Lewis Scooter Libby. The evidence made public by that
trial points to an urgent need for impeachment proceedings against Vice
President Cheney. The evidence suggests that Cheney was the driving force
behind the campaign of retribution [23] against ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson,
including the outing of his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame. Journalist Murray
Waas has indicated [24] some of the points that cry out for investigation.
New York Times columnist [25] Nicholas Kristof has urged Cheney to "come
clean," offer an explanation for his actions, or resign. A blogger with the
handle emptywheel [26] has drafted a mock indictment of Cheney, and Wil S.
Hylton [27] has recently published possible articles of impeachment against
the Vice President in the men's fashion magazine GQ.
It seems everyone's getting into the act, except Congress. But Congress
could do so. The evidence uncovered by the Libby trial did not exist when
Pelosi ordered impeachment "off the table" a year ago. Among the public,
there is a lot of fear that impeaching Bush (and removing him from office)
would give us a President Cheney. By impeaching the incredibly unpopular
Cheney first, Congress would allay these fears. Impeaching Cheney might
actually unite the mood of the public with that of Congress more easily than
the impeachment of George W. Bush -- under the motto: Business Before
Pleasure [28] -- Impeach Cheney First!
In the meantime, the Democrats' strategy of letting the war continue, not
thoroughly investigating the fraud that launched it, and not holding the
war-makers accountable may prove not to be the electoral winner that Party
figures like Emanuel expect. It might even prove a political equalizer and
so a loser in 2008 or beyond. Every day that the Democrats don't move to end
the war in Iraq is another day in which that war, stretching ever on, can
become the Democrats' war. Only if they come to believe that the war's
unpopularity will work against them in the voting booths in 2008 or
thereafter will they be strongly motivated to take the sorts of actions that
might actually bring it to an end.
David Swanson is the Washington Director of Democrats.com [29] and
co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org [30] coalition, a board member of
Progressive Democrats of America, and of the Backbone Campaign. He serves on
a working group of United for Peace and Justice. He has worked as a
newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including
Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign. His
website is davidswanson.org [31].
[Note: For those who want to know more about bringing citizen pressure on
Washington and/or promoting and lobbying for the launching of impeachment
proceedings against George W. Bush and/or Dick Cheney, check out David
Swanson's previous Tomdispatch piece, "The Impeachment Moment," [32] and
then visit ImpeachO7.org [33].]
Copyright 2007 David Swanson
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
But Failed
By David Swanson
Created Mar 5 2007 - 8:50am
- first posted at TomDispatch [1]
The shortest route to ending the Iraq war (and preventing additional wars)
is almost certainly through Congress. Influencing the White House directly
is unimaginable, and stopping the war through the courts unlikely. Clearly,
Congress is the way to go. But what specifically can Congress do?
How We Got Here
The peace movement lobbied a Republican Congress without success for four
years. Then, on November 7, 2006, the American public elected a Democratic
Congress in a clear mandate delivered at the polls. Not a single new
Republican was elected, and 30 new Democrats were ushered in, with voters
overwhelmingly telling pollsters that they were voting against the war; and
by "against the war," they meant "against the war," not "against the
escalation." Remember, the President's "surge" into Baghdad had not yet been
announced.
Voters also appeared to be voting for accountability and possibly for the
launching of impeachment hearings [2] as well. Polls prior to the election
found that a majority of Americans believed a Democratic Congress would
impeach. Candidates who campaigned on the theme of accountability, including
Keith Ellison (Dem., Minnesota) who promised impeachment, did well. Polls
show that a majority [3] of Americans favor impeachment or wish [4] Bush's
presidency were over. Voters in November even booted out a couple of
Republicans who had turned against the war, saying that they were voting for
a Democratic majority so that the Democrats could investigate the war as
well as end it -- something a majority of Americans continue to say [5] they
want.
Prior to the election, Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi had already ordered the
Democrats in the House to oppose impeachment, but she had not ordered them
to support the war. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC),
chaired by Congressman Rahm Emanuel, however, directed most of its financial
support to candidates [6] who did not call for ending the war. Of the 22
candidates funded by the DCCC, only 8 won [7]. The rest of the victorious
Democratic challengers, many of them strongly opposed to the war, got
themselves elected without Emanuel's help.
Halfway Steps in the House
Of course, now that the election is over and the Democratic leadership has
heard the people speak so clearly, now that, on January 27th, half a million
Americans encircled the Capitol in opposition to the war, now that the new
Congress has in its hands the power that the Republicans had a year ago,
surely ending the war is at the top of its agenda.
Well, not according to Emanuel's way of thinking, as reported in the
Washington Post [8]:
"For the rest of the year, Emanuel says, the leadership hopes to stress
energy independence (with fuel-saving efficiency standards for appliances
and cars) and a move toward better health care for children. And here's what
Emanuel doesn't want to do: fall into the political trap of chasing
overambitious or potentially unpopular measures. Ask about universal health
care, and he shakes his head... Reform of Social Security and other
entitlements? Too big, too woolly, too risky... The country is angry, and it
will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don't look to
Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it
splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up
the pieces."
So, clearly the question before us is not just what Congress can do to end
the war, but also how the American public can persuade a Democratic Congress
to want to end the war. Most Republican members of Congress still follow
White House orders like sheep, and leading House Democrat Emanuel is openly
telling the media that he'd just as soon have the war still going on in
2008. The war has cost an estimated 655,000 Iraqi lives and over 3,000
American ones in its first 4 years, with the death rate increasing over
time, so by a safe estimate Emanuel has just written off perhaps another few
hundred thousand lives for the sake of an electoral strategy.
Prior to the recent Congressional recess, Congressman Jack Murtha proposed
[9] that he draft a new bill, agreeing to throw $93 billion or so at the war
in the form of another "emergency supplemental" outside the regular federal
budget. That may not sound like an anti-war proposal, but it certainly
passed for one in Washington, D.C. In fact, Murtha was pilloried by
Republicans and much of the media because he proposed including requirements
that troops be properly rested, trained, and equipped before being sent to
Iraq. Murtha argued that these requirements would force Bush to end his
"surge."
In a climate in which opposition to the "surge" had become confused with
opposition to the war, Murtha's plan was, amazingly enough, treated [10] as
the near equivalent of pacifism. And no strong defense of it emerged from
the Democratic leadership. Instead the plan evolved into a proposal to
require the President to inform Congress when he was deploying troops
lacking adequate rest, training, or equipment. But it is unclear how this
would even curtail the present escalation, much less end the war, and there
has been no indication of what Congress would do if Bush failed to obey this
reporting requirement.
Bizarrely, this whole discussion has taken place without any reference to
the fact that, in November 2003, Congress passed the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, which placed limits on the number of
days that a member of the Armed Forces could be deployed. Bush signed that
bill into law, but added a signing statement announcing [11] his intention
to disregard that section. The U.S. Constitution gives the President the
power to sign bills into law and enforce them, or to veto them. There is no
constitutional middle course. Yet Bush has routinely used signing statements
to announce [12] his plans to disregard portions of bills he signs into law.
This abuse might be addressed by impeachment proceedings, something the
Democrats are not currently considering. But short of addressing this abuse,
Congress Members could at least behave as though they were aware of it.
Wholehearted House Actions
Numerous peace and justice organizations seeking to end the war are urging
Congress Members to vote "no" on the $93 billion supplemental bill. At the
same time, they are watching closely for possible amendments to the bill
that could require the money be spent on a rapid withdrawal. Such amendments
might be introduced and voted on in the House Appropriations Committee, on
which Congresswoman Barbara Lee (Dem., California) serves, along with
Murtha, or they might be introduced and voted on in the full House.
If a bill provided billions of dollars for the war but required that it all
be spent on the withdrawal of troops, and if such a bill passed both houses
of Congress, the President would be unable to veto it without denying
himself a source of funding he badly wants. And there is at least a chance
that Congress would take umbrage and pay attention if he cancelled the end
of the war with another of his signing statements.
Other possibilities for ending the war in the House include not passing a
supplemental bill at all, or passing one of the four bills that have been
introduced (by Representatives Lynn Woolsey, Jim McGovern, Jerrold Nadler,
and Dennis Kucinich) that would use the power of the purse to try to bring
the war to an end. There are also several bills that would instruct the
President to end the war while continuing to fund it, an approach that seems
more likely to pass both houses of Congress, but far less likely to achieve
anything close to their stated goal.
Senator Russ Feingold held hearings [13] in January on the constitutional
power of the Congress to end a war. One point on which there seems to be
consensus: Congress has the Constitutional power to control what money is
spent on (even if that power has hardly been touched in any meaningful way
in recent years). If Congress says no more money can be spent on the war,
then that is the law of the land -- although the history of the Iran-Contra
scandal [14], the secret beginning [15] of the current Iraq War, and
operations now underway in Iran remind us that the law of the land and the
acts of the White House can sometimes be two separate matters.
Congressman Kucinich's bill is brand new. The other three House bills have
been in play for some weeks. While Congressman Nadler's bill does not have
the support among his colleagues that Woolsey's and McGovern's do (thanks to
both friendships and political alliances), Nadler has perhaps done the best
job of crafting a bill in which Congress could make use of its undisputed
power to end the war. While the other two bills first instruct Bush to end
the war in a specific period of time, and only afterward forbid the use of
additional funds for the war that is now theoretically over, Nadler's bill
immediately restricts the use of any money appropriated by Congress to
withdrawing the troops from Iraq.
Actually, Nadler's bill restricts the use of funds to protecting the troops
and withdrawing them. He admits that the "protecting the troops" part is a
bit of nonsense, since the only way to protect them is to withdraw them. But
all of these bills have been written with a keen eye to repelling the
commonplace criticism that bringing our troops safely home somehow
constitutes a failure to "support the troops."
Senate Shortcomings and Opportunities
A new sideways approach to ending the war without saying you're ending it is
only now emerging in the Senate. This one involves "reauthorizing" the war.
This war was, of course, never declared but pre-authorized to be launched at
the President's discretion for the purpose of eliminating Iraq's mythical
weapons of mass destruction and combating those falsely alleged to have been
behind the attacks of 9-11. The facts have already repealed that
authorization, but it would be useful for Congress to do so as well.
Actually reauthorizing the war, on the other hand, would undoubtedly be less
useful, as it might appear to the public to be support for the war; while
any aspects of the reauthorization aimed at slowly ending the war will
surely be viciously attacked by the administration and its supporters. In
fact, that's already begun. The White House is denouncing any attempts to
restrict the war as "micromanagement" and Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice has announced that Bush will probably disregard [16] restrictions
placed on the war by Congress. Rice was asked in a broadcast interview
whether the President would feel bound by legislation seeking to withdraw
combat troops within 120 days. "The president is going to, as commander in
chief, need to do what the country needs done," she replied. This brazenly
unconstitutional stance is another one of those "details" -- like Bush's
past signing statements -- that Congress might do well to bear in mind and
cease trying to ignore.
There are a couple of possible ways the Senate might get around this. One
would simply be not to pass the Pentagon's supplemental spending bill --
something that 41 Senators could accomplish through a filibuster. The other
would be to pass Senator Russ Feingold's bill [17] to stop funding the war,
which would obviously require a far higher voting hurdle than that
filibuster. Passing a bill would involve gathering a majority -- and
overriding a veto to maintain it, a two-thirds vote in both houses. The
filibuster, however, presents another kind of hurdle in that it requires
some Senator or group of Senators to find the decency and courage to begin
it, uncertain of success.
Legislating a Unitary Executive
What is lost in all of these strategy discussions, of course, is the
question of whether any sort of Congressional cut-off of funds would
actually truncate either the surge or the war. Remember, the President and
Vice President began the preparations for the invasion of Iraq secretly with
at least $2.5 billion [18] illegally taken from other areas. They have
promised never to end the war. They have asserted the power of a "unitary
executive." They have launched pre-war operations in Iran without any
authorization [19] or funding from Congress. They have built permanent bases
in Iraq without any approval from Congress, and continued that construction
work in violation of a bill [20] passed by Congress forbidding the use of
any funding for it.
So, the question is not just whether Congress can cut off the money, but
whether the Bush administration can find enough money in other places
illegally to continue a war that has never in any sense been legal. The
amount of money we're talking about is enormous, but it is a fraction of the
Pentagon's budget, and it seems clear that -- given the kinds of "black
budget" moneys floating around in that world -- the war could be continued
for some time (long enough at least to gin up a new enemy to scare Congress
with); that is, unless the military sides with Congress in this dispute and
refuses [21] to pursue the war with misappropriated funds.
If any of these strategies to end the war come to fruition in Congress, a
more likely outcome than an actual end to the war would be a full-scale
confrontation with the "commander-in-chief" presidency of George Bush (and
the vice-presidency of Dick Cheney), leading to possible impeachment
proceedings.
Here's the reality, however: None of these strategies are likely to advance
very far very soon. A movement for impeachment now might strengthen the hand
of those in Congress who want to move on ending the war. During the Vietnam
War, the peace and impeachment efforts aided each other. And the Democrats
then won the next elections, something they failed to do after choosing not
to pursue impeachment proceedings against Ronald Reagan for the Iran-Contra
scandal.
What Could Change
Two events on the horizon might change this outlook. One is an attack on
Iran [22]. Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers have said they favor
launching the impeachment process if the Bush administration attacks Iran.
Needless to say, it would be better to begin proceedings to impeach in order
to prevent an attack on Iran, but that is unlikely in the present political
atmosphere.
The other event that could take us all surprising places is the completion
of the trial of I. Lewis Scooter Libby. The evidence made public by that
trial points to an urgent need for impeachment proceedings against Vice
President Cheney. The evidence suggests that Cheney was the driving force
behind the campaign of retribution [23] against ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson,
including the outing of his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame. Journalist Murray
Waas has indicated [24] some of the points that cry out for investigation.
New York Times columnist [25] Nicholas Kristof has urged Cheney to "come
clean," offer an explanation for his actions, or resign. A blogger with the
handle emptywheel [26] has drafted a mock indictment of Cheney, and Wil S.
Hylton [27] has recently published possible articles of impeachment against
the Vice President in the men's fashion magazine GQ.
It seems everyone's getting into the act, except Congress. But Congress
could do so. The evidence uncovered by the Libby trial did not exist when
Pelosi ordered impeachment "off the table" a year ago. Among the public,
there is a lot of fear that impeaching Bush (and removing him from office)
would give us a President Cheney. By impeaching the incredibly unpopular
Cheney first, Congress would allay these fears. Impeaching Cheney might
actually unite the mood of the public with that of Congress more easily than
the impeachment of George W. Bush -- under the motto: Business Before
Pleasure [28] -- Impeach Cheney First!
In the meantime, the Democrats' strategy of letting the war continue, not
thoroughly investigating the fraud that launched it, and not holding the
war-makers accountable may prove not to be the electoral winner that Party
figures like Emanuel expect. It might even prove a political equalizer and
so a loser in 2008 or beyond. Every day that the Democrats don't move to end
the war in Iraq is another day in which that war, stretching ever on, can
become the Democrats' war. Only if they come to believe that the war's
unpopularity will work against them in the voting booths in 2008 or
thereafter will they be strongly motivated to take the sorts of actions that
might actually bring it to an end.
David Swanson is the Washington Director of Democrats.com [29] and
co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org [30] coalition, a board member of
Progressive Democrats of America, and of the Backbone Campaign. He serves on
a working group of United for Peace and Justice. He has worked as a
newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including
Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign. His
website is davidswanson.org [31].
[Note: For those who want to know more about bringing citizen pressure on
Washington and/or promoting and lobbying for the launching of impeachment
proceedings against George W. Bush and/or Dick Cheney, check out David
Swanson's previous Tomdispatch piece, "The Impeachment Moment," [32] and
then visit ImpeachO7.org [33].]
Copyright 2007 David Swanson
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson