Of Battered Wives and the US Congress

[Guest Gandalf Grey]

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