Point Austin: Impeaching the Empire

I haven't written much about impeaching the Bush administration, although I readily concede there is more than ample justification to indict and convict President Bush and Vice President Cheney (and numerous accomplices) on an itemized list of high crimes and misdemeanors, only the most prominent of which would be conspiring to violate international law, engaging in illegal wars, and imprisoning and torturing hundreds of people without regard for national or international law or the U.S. Constitution. But since there has seemed so little chance that anything approaching impeachment would actually occur – for many reasons, but certainly in part because our last congressional adventure in that vein had left such a bitter public taste – it has seemed pointless to belabor the procedure except as an exercise in hypocritical moralism. I frankly don't much care for symbolic politics unless there is some substantive goal in play – and handing beleaguered Republican incumbents a martyrdom card does not strike me as a useful public purpose.

Nevertheless, I was pleased to see the U.S. House Judiciary Committee convene last week for its hearing on Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations, the polite euphemism conceived to mollify both the Republican opposition and those Democrats so afraid of their own shadows that even the word "impeachment" gives them the fantods (a literal impeachment hearing would require a formal House vote). Thus Chairman John Conyers referred obliquely to "the [congressional] power to remove through the constitutional process officers who may have violated their oath," a phrase instantly seized upon by GOP members to blast the Dems for talking-about-something-they-were-not-supposed-to-be-talking-about. Arizona Republican Trent Franks boomed, "I hope that none of the witnesses will even mention the word 'impeachment,'" and then went on to pound plangent variations on "terrorism" until all ears were bleeding.

That went on for six hours last Friday, although I doubt many of you knew it. A handful may have watched on C-SPAN, and I thought at least the "major newspapers" would report the parade of witnesses – from Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman through GOP mavericks Bruce Fein and former Rep. Bob Barr – who itemized at length the executive actions that should be called to direct account by this Congress, greatly abbreviated in Conyers' opening statement addressing the "imperial presidency": "the politicization of the Department of Justice; misuse of signing statements; misuse of authority with regard to detention, interrogation, and rendition; possible manipulation of intelligence regarding the Iraq war; improper retaliation against critics of the administration, including the outing of Valerie Plame; and excessive secrecy by the administration, including the misuse of various privileges and immunities." Concluded Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, a few minutes later: "Although the call to impeach is one that I take neither easily nor lightly, I now firmly believe that impeachment hearings are the appropriate and necessary next step."

---

One Hand Clapping

That's only the tip of a very large and smoking volcano, but one quite beneath serious media attention. I was of course wrong about the "major" newspapers. A few from committee members' districts (Cleveland, Madison) mentioned the roles of Ohio's Kucinich or Wisconsin's Baldwin. The New York Times, our presumptive national newspaper of record, mentioned the hearing not at all. The Washington Post – currently lecturing the Russians and Chinese about official accountability – featured only Dana Milbank's condescending recapitulation, leading with Austin's gerrymandered GOP Rep. Lamar Smith's sneer, "It seems that we are hosting an anger management class."

At home, Our Local Daily – still fresh from last week's editorial declaration of high reporting "standards" – provided only a national digest paragraph ("Bush critics air woes at hearing") redacted from an Associated Press commentary dismissing the hearing as a Dem effort to make impeachment charges "quietly fade away." Despite public sentiment polling for a Bush impeachment at 50% or better for several years now, the national media long ago decided the subject is "off the table" – is it any wonder that the Dem leadership should take its political bearings from those prevailing winds?

---

Two Plus Two

As I said, I don't doubt that the legal conditions exist for impeachment. The political conditions are something else again, and much smarter politicians than I have understandably concluded that in the face of a media blackout (or backlash), it makes little sense to expend public energy on an effort doomed not just to fail but to backfire on its supporters. Certainly our own moral satisfaction at calling out Bush and company is insufficient motivation for demanding headline congressional action; the best we can hope for, it seems, is continued amplification of these charges in the public mind by whatever means we otherwise possess. "The question for Congress is this: What responsibility do the president and members of his administration have for that unnecessary, unprovoked, and unjustified war?" asked Kucinich. "The rules of the House prevent me or any witness from utilizing familiar terms. But we can put two and two together in our minds. We can draw inferences about culpability."

The Judiciary hearing, circumscribed as it was, accumulated and narrow-casted the basic public charges against the administration. The major U.S. media have made it clear that such charges will not be widely disseminated, and certainly not reiterated, between now and November and, therefore, will not be addressed as "impeachable" offenses. If they are at least to be sustained as political offenses, that will have to be determined at the ballot box.

---

For your enlightenment, major submitted testimony for the Judiciary Committee hearing is available at www.judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_072508.html. The Kucinich impeachment resolution, as submitted to the House June 9, is posted with the sidebar below.

---

Corrections: Last week I quoted Jeremy Scahill suggesting that citizens "cheat [on Obama] with the Constitution"; more precisely, he said "with a little bit of conscience." (Thanks to Rachel Farris of Mean Rachel blog.) And Omar Gallaga of the Statesman called to inform me that his interview with "Obama Girl" was the first video to be posted from the Netroots Nation convention, but not the daily's first story on the convention. (Out of professional courtesy, I had omitted his byline, but no good deed, etc.)