G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Of Battered Wives and the US Congress
By Stephen Pizzo
Created Jul 17 2007 - 9:10am
Is it just me, or have you noticed it too? Something is afoot -- maybe. All
of a sudden I am reading and seeing on TV individuals who wear suits and can
quote the US constitution from memory talking about the impeachment of
George W. Bush and his sidekick.
My first clue was when I read last week that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told
a radio station, "We can't take impeachment off the table."
Holy whiplash, Batman, isn't that exactly the opposite of what she's been
saying since crowned Speaker last January? What happened there?
Then there was the extraordinary interview Bill Moyers did last week with
John Nichols of The Nation magazine and Bruce Fein, a former Justice
Department official during the Reagan administration who drafted articles of
impeachment against Bill Clinton.
(If you missed it, you shouldn't have. Here are the highlights. [1])
Neocons may dismiss Nichols' views as those of a "known liberal," but what
about Fine? No lib there. Fine is the guy conservatives tapped to craft and
pen the case against Clinton. Now he wants to do the same thing for Bush -
and for precisely the same reasons.
Both men explained that impeachment, always framed by mainstream media as a
"constitutional crisis," is actually precisely the opposite. Impeachment,
they explained, is the solution to a constitutional crisis. The real
constitutional crisis occurs when Congress fails to protect and maintain the
balance of power the Founders enshrined in the constitution.
"The Founders gave congress the power to impeach as the remedy to an
imperial presidency," Fine noted.
Of course those on the right will claim that any talk of impeaching Bush and
Cheney is purely political - as though that were something bad. Hello! Of
course it's political. It's a political process created and delineated by
the cornerstone political document - our US constitution. You remember that
the document, the user manual for our democracy. (Maybe it would be more
popular if the Founders had entitled it, "Democracy for Dummies.")
Back when Republicans pushed to impeach Bill Clinton for perjury Democrats
screamed, "politics," too. But Fine explained that Bill Clinton got himself
in that jam by trying to put himself above the law. Never mind that what he
lied about was hardly a matter of national security, all Fine cares about it
that he lied, committed a crime - perjury. The rest is simply back-story.
Fine says that there is now plenty of evidence that Bush and Cheney too have
lied -- more than once and about matters far more serious than Clinton's
little walk on the wild side. Fien says that is why Congress should have
begun impeachment hearings long ago. Not so much to remove Bush and Cheney
from office, but as way of laying down constitutional markers, lines in the
sand over which Congress was not about to allow the executive branch to
simply ignore.
Fien adds that even now that their term in office is short, Congress should
still proceed with impeachment hearings in order to reestablish and
reinforce the constitutional balance - the whole "co-equal branches"
business - as the Founders intended.
But Congress still has not done so. Will they?
Democrats worry that trying to impeach Bush and Cheney would blow back on
them in the 2008 elections, by making them appear petty and politically
motivated. A perception which is, of course their own damn fault. If they
hadn't spent the last six years acting like such a pack of conniving little
weasels maybe we'd be less likely to jump such a conclusion.
Now that they've richly earned that reputation they'll have to undo it. And
the only way to do that is to start talking to us straight from the heart.
Believe me, we do know the difference. We can feel it, even more than we
hear it. We know when you're just jerking us off - again. We and, while far
and few between, we know immediately when a pol has had it and suddenly
starts blathering truth. And we love it when that happens.
If Congress proceeds with impeachment hearings all they need to do is
honestly explain why they've come to that point. That they are not attacking
a Republican administration, but rather circling the wagons around the US
Constitution, under attack by that administration.
Republicans too need to sober up and get on the right side of this fight -
just as they did when another Republican president, Richard Nixon, believed
he could do whatever the hell he wanted to do, legal or otherwise - too
often otherwise.
The sobering agent for Republicans should be evident. In about two years the
next occupants of the White House will likely be Democrats. Do Republicans
want to have to face four or eight years of being dissed, ignored and
further marginalized by a Democratic administration, simply because they
allowed Bush and Cheney to set such precedents?
Some also warn that the US Supreme Court, now in conservative hands, could
actually validate the Bush administration's expansive view of executive
powers. Not likely. While the Supreme Court may have been able to fix one
national election for conservatives they can't count of being handed the
same extraordinary opportunity again, any time soon. Therefore the Supremes,
like Republicans in congress, are not going to want to hand a Democratic
president imperial power. (Besides, once congress is neutered, might not the
Court itself be next? Sure, why not. A compliant congress might be asked by
the president to pass a constitutional amendment clipping the wings of the
judges all the way up to the Supremes themselves. "Mission Accomplished.")
While it's refreshing to see and hear accomplished, articulate and sane
adults suddenly talking right out loud about impeachment, nothing is going
to happen unless the idea catches fire in Congress. So far it has not, and I
have a theory why. Since last November's switch of control in Congress to
Democrats, Congress been treated by this administration like the classic
battered wife.
For the first six years of the Bush presidency he hardly had to raise his
voice. During that period Congress was a perfect Stepford wife, obedient,
deferential and which spoke only when spoken to. Then came the 2006
elections and the new Congress got restless. (Call it the Seven Year Itch.)
Congress suddenly started talking back, demanding her "rights" and
questioning the head of the household.
That's when the real abuse began, and it's gotten progressively worse ever
since. Like most abusive relationships the abuser in this case, Bush, et al,
have succeeded in keeping the abused off balance, scared, confused and, most
important, powerless.
If called to investigate, here's how the police report might read:
Police Report
Incident: Domestic Violence
Suspect(s): George W. Bush, Richard "Dick" Cheney.
Victim(s): US House of Representatives, US Senate
Accusation(s):
1. Suspect GB has consistently refused to allow victims H and S to
participate in decisions involving family matters. GB perpetrated this
offense through the use of extra-legal instruments he refers to as
"Presidential Signing Statements [2]." (Claims that GB's associate, DC,
shouted at victims, "Shut up bitch, we decide the rules under this roof,"
could not be immediately confirmed.)
2. GB and associate, Alberto Gonzales, have repeatedly lied [3] when victims
inquired into their actions. ("There hasn't been a single violation of US
law in the application of the Patriot Act.") Said lying appears to have
begun almost seven years ago and has continued and expanded to include a
broad sweep of issues, including but not limited to possible perjury. These
matters include lying about issues critical to the health, safety and
security of the family, including but not limited to science, the
environment and national security.
3. Possible obstruction of justice and/or destruction of evidence: GB, DC,
AG and a number of unnamed associates, when made aware of this
investigation, began hiding and destroying evidence and other community
property, rather than sharing it with victims as the law requires. ("Oops,
seems we deleted 5 million executive branch emails [4].")
4. Refusal to communicate and/or obstruction of justice: When victims H & S
tried to make inquiries into suspects' abusive behavior, suspects GB, DC and
others in their employ, refused to communicate with victims, claiming they
didn't have to. This extraordinary claim was later extended to cover
friends, associates and former employees of suspects as well. ("Harriet
Meirs has been told to ignore the Congressional subpoena [5].")
5. Alienation of Association. When asked to follow certain laws that cover
suspects GB and DC, DC claimed he was not member of that branch of the
family after all, and therefore did not have to follow said laws [6]. DC's
accomplice, GB, subsequently backed DC's alibi. DC continues to maintain
this position, continues to violate said laws and rules and continues to
refuse to communicate with victims regarding this ongoing abuse.
The result of all the above abuse of congress and the constitution by this
administration has rendered Congress cowed, confused and afraid to act in
it's own interest or that of the family as a whole. The remaining Stepford
Republicans continue making excuses for their abusive leaders, while
Democrats fain action through procedural, "non-binding," symbolic
legislation.
What do we need to do in order to empower these poor, pathetic battered
representatives of the people? Are they afraid to act because they no longer
feel safe in their own houses? Must we set up a safe house for them
somewhere on Capitol Hill where their batterers can't get at them?
Are members of congress so far gone that we need some kind of national
intervention? Do "we the people" need to descend on Washington en mass, drag
these legislative basket cases out of their offices one at time and give
them the "remember us," lecture?
Wait! Come to think of it we don't have to go to Washington to intervene
after all. Because they are coming to us this August. They'll be back in
their home districts (at least when not playing golf or raising money) and
that's the perfect time for us to let them know that, if they stand up to
their abusers, we'll stand with them.
And, if they won't then we won't be there for them come November 2008.
_______
newsforreal.com
About author Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including
"Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans," which was
nominated for a Pulitzer. His web site is News For Real [7].
--
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
By Stephen Pizzo
Created Jul 17 2007 - 9:10am
Is it just me, or have you noticed it too? Something is afoot -- maybe. All
of a sudden I am reading and seeing on TV individuals who wear suits and can
quote the US constitution from memory talking about the impeachment of
George W. Bush and his sidekick.
My first clue was when I read last week that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told
a radio station, "We can't take impeachment off the table."
Holy whiplash, Batman, isn't that exactly the opposite of what she's been
saying since crowned Speaker last January? What happened there?
Then there was the extraordinary interview Bill Moyers did last week with
John Nichols of The Nation magazine and Bruce Fein, a former Justice
Department official during the Reagan administration who drafted articles of
impeachment against Bill Clinton.
(If you missed it, you shouldn't have. Here are the highlights. [1])
Neocons may dismiss Nichols' views as those of a "known liberal," but what
about Fine? No lib there. Fine is the guy conservatives tapped to craft and
pen the case against Clinton. Now he wants to do the same thing for Bush -
and for precisely the same reasons.
Both men explained that impeachment, always framed by mainstream media as a
"constitutional crisis," is actually precisely the opposite. Impeachment,
they explained, is the solution to a constitutional crisis. The real
constitutional crisis occurs when Congress fails to protect and maintain the
balance of power the Founders enshrined in the constitution.
"The Founders gave congress the power to impeach as the remedy to an
imperial presidency," Fine noted.
Of course those on the right will claim that any talk of impeaching Bush and
Cheney is purely political - as though that were something bad. Hello! Of
course it's political. It's a political process created and delineated by
the cornerstone political document - our US constitution. You remember that
the document, the user manual for our democracy. (Maybe it would be more
popular if the Founders had entitled it, "Democracy for Dummies.")
Back when Republicans pushed to impeach Bill Clinton for perjury Democrats
screamed, "politics," too. But Fine explained that Bill Clinton got himself
in that jam by trying to put himself above the law. Never mind that what he
lied about was hardly a matter of national security, all Fine cares about it
that he lied, committed a crime - perjury. The rest is simply back-story.
Fine says that there is now plenty of evidence that Bush and Cheney too have
lied -- more than once and about matters far more serious than Clinton's
little walk on the wild side. Fien says that is why Congress should have
begun impeachment hearings long ago. Not so much to remove Bush and Cheney
from office, but as way of laying down constitutional markers, lines in the
sand over which Congress was not about to allow the executive branch to
simply ignore.
Fien adds that even now that their term in office is short, Congress should
still proceed with impeachment hearings in order to reestablish and
reinforce the constitutional balance - the whole "co-equal branches"
business - as the Founders intended.
But Congress still has not done so. Will they?
Democrats worry that trying to impeach Bush and Cheney would blow back on
them in the 2008 elections, by making them appear petty and politically
motivated. A perception which is, of course their own damn fault. If they
hadn't spent the last six years acting like such a pack of conniving little
weasels maybe we'd be less likely to jump such a conclusion.
Now that they've richly earned that reputation they'll have to undo it. And
the only way to do that is to start talking to us straight from the heart.
Believe me, we do know the difference. We can feel it, even more than we
hear it. We know when you're just jerking us off - again. We and, while far
and few between, we know immediately when a pol has had it and suddenly
starts blathering truth. And we love it when that happens.
If Congress proceeds with impeachment hearings all they need to do is
honestly explain why they've come to that point. That they are not attacking
a Republican administration, but rather circling the wagons around the US
Constitution, under attack by that administration.
Republicans too need to sober up and get on the right side of this fight -
just as they did when another Republican president, Richard Nixon, believed
he could do whatever the hell he wanted to do, legal or otherwise - too
often otherwise.
The sobering agent for Republicans should be evident. In about two years the
next occupants of the White House will likely be Democrats. Do Republicans
want to have to face four or eight years of being dissed, ignored and
further marginalized by a Democratic administration, simply because they
allowed Bush and Cheney to set such precedents?
Some also warn that the US Supreme Court, now in conservative hands, could
actually validate the Bush administration's expansive view of executive
powers. Not likely. While the Supreme Court may have been able to fix one
national election for conservatives they can't count of being handed the
same extraordinary opportunity again, any time soon. Therefore the Supremes,
like Republicans in congress, are not going to want to hand a Democratic
president imperial power. (Besides, once congress is neutered, might not the
Court itself be next? Sure, why not. A compliant congress might be asked by
the president to pass a constitutional amendment clipping the wings of the
judges all the way up to the Supremes themselves. "Mission Accomplished.")
While it's refreshing to see and hear accomplished, articulate and sane
adults suddenly talking right out loud about impeachment, nothing is going
to happen unless the idea catches fire in Congress. So far it has not, and I
have a theory why. Since last November's switch of control in Congress to
Democrats, Congress been treated by this administration like the classic
battered wife.
For the first six years of the Bush presidency he hardly had to raise his
voice. During that period Congress was a perfect Stepford wife, obedient,
deferential and which spoke only when spoken to. Then came the 2006
elections and the new Congress got restless. (Call it the Seven Year Itch.)
Congress suddenly started talking back, demanding her "rights" and
questioning the head of the household.
That's when the real abuse began, and it's gotten progressively worse ever
since. Like most abusive relationships the abuser in this case, Bush, et al,
have succeeded in keeping the abused off balance, scared, confused and, most
important, powerless.
If called to investigate, here's how the police report might read:
Police Report
Incident: Domestic Violence
Suspect(s): George W. Bush, Richard "Dick" Cheney.
Victim(s): US House of Representatives, US Senate
Accusation(s):
1. Suspect GB has consistently refused to allow victims H and S to
participate in decisions involving family matters. GB perpetrated this
offense through the use of extra-legal instruments he refers to as
"Presidential Signing Statements [2]." (Claims that GB's associate, DC,
shouted at victims, "Shut up bitch, we decide the rules under this roof,"
could not be immediately confirmed.)
2. GB and associate, Alberto Gonzales, have repeatedly lied [3] when victims
inquired into their actions. ("There hasn't been a single violation of US
law in the application of the Patriot Act.") Said lying appears to have
begun almost seven years ago and has continued and expanded to include a
broad sweep of issues, including but not limited to possible perjury. These
matters include lying about issues critical to the health, safety and
security of the family, including but not limited to science, the
environment and national security.
3. Possible obstruction of justice and/or destruction of evidence: GB, DC,
AG and a number of unnamed associates, when made aware of this
investigation, began hiding and destroying evidence and other community
property, rather than sharing it with victims as the law requires. ("Oops,
seems we deleted 5 million executive branch emails [4].")
4. Refusal to communicate and/or obstruction of justice: When victims H & S
tried to make inquiries into suspects' abusive behavior, suspects GB, DC and
others in their employ, refused to communicate with victims, claiming they
didn't have to. This extraordinary claim was later extended to cover
friends, associates and former employees of suspects as well. ("Harriet
Meirs has been told to ignore the Congressional subpoena [5].")
5. Alienation of Association. When asked to follow certain laws that cover
suspects GB and DC, DC claimed he was not member of that branch of the
family after all, and therefore did not have to follow said laws [6]. DC's
accomplice, GB, subsequently backed DC's alibi. DC continues to maintain
this position, continues to violate said laws and rules and continues to
refuse to communicate with victims regarding this ongoing abuse.
The result of all the above abuse of congress and the constitution by this
administration has rendered Congress cowed, confused and afraid to act in
it's own interest or that of the family as a whole. The remaining Stepford
Republicans continue making excuses for their abusive leaders, while
Democrats fain action through procedural, "non-binding," symbolic
legislation.
What do we need to do in order to empower these poor, pathetic battered
representatives of the people? Are they afraid to act because they no longer
feel safe in their own houses? Must we set up a safe house for them
somewhere on Capitol Hill where their batterers can't get at them?
Are members of congress so far gone that we need some kind of national
intervention? Do "we the people" need to descend on Washington en mass, drag
these legislative basket cases out of their offices one at time and give
them the "remember us," lecture?
Wait! Come to think of it we don't have to go to Washington to intervene
after all. Because they are coming to us this August. They'll be back in
their home districts (at least when not playing golf or raising money) and
that's the perfect time for us to let them know that, if they stand up to
their abusers, we'll stand with them.
And, if they won't then we won't be there for them come November 2008.
_______
newsforreal.com
About author Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including
"Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans," which was
nominated for a Pulitzer. His web site is News For Real [7].
--
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