Posted on 11/18/2005 6:53:55 AM PST by teddyballgame
November 18, 2005 Will Democratic Charges That Bush 'Lied' Lead To His Impeachment? By Mort Kondracke
The 2006 election is shaping up to be a bitterly fought referendum on President Bush - to the point where, if Democrats win, they just might impeach him.
The "I-word" so far is mainly tossed around in the left-wing blogosphere: Barbra Streisand is calling for impeachment on her Web site, for example, as is an unofficial "progressive" site called Democrats.com. But Democratic accusations that Bush lied to get the United States into the Iraq war would seem to lead logically to demands for his removal from office.
The level of venom infusing the Iraq debate, already toxic, has escalated in the past few days as Bush defends himself against charges of lying and Democrats accuse him of "smearing" them and questioning their patriotism.
On Monday, for example, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) charged that Bush "dishonored America's veterans and those serving today" by playing "attack politics" in a Veterans Day speech.
In the speech, Bush quoted Kerry, before he voted for the Iraq war, as saying that Saddam Hussein's "deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a threat, and a great threat, to our national security." Bush added that it is "irresponsible" for Democrats to "rewrite the history" of how the United States went to war.
He said that the Democrats' "baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and an enemy that is questioning our will." Kerry accused Bush of charging that Democrats were "unpatriotic." Kerry also asserted that Bush did not rely on faulty intelligence before the war, "as Democrats did," but waged "a concerted campaign to twist the intelligence to justify a war (he) had already decided to fight."
And, said Kerry, "How are the same Republicans who tried to impeach a president over whether he misled a nation about an affair going to pretend it does not matter if the administration intentionally misled the country into war?"
So, here we have the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate using the I-word in an attack on Bush, albeit indirectly. I'd bet it was a trial balloon, designed to get the idea out on the table without having to accept responsibility for actually recommending it.
The idea has been floated previously by some House liberals. Last month, Congressional Quarterly reported that Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said it "would be an impeachable offense" if evidence proved that Bush or Vice President Cheney authorized aides to mislead lawmakers.
In June, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, held a mock impeachment inquiry based on the "Downing Street memo" that claimed Bush had made up his mind to go to war even as he was saying that Hussein could still come into compliance with United Nations resolutions.
Kerry repeated that allegation on Monday in the course of charging that "the war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history."
Newspapers also have quoted Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) as saying that "this administration has committed more impeachable offenses than any other government in history" and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) as saying that "lying to the Congress about a large public purpose such as Iraq" fit the constitutional test of "high crimes and misdemeanors" better than lying about sex, the offense that led Republicans to impeach former President Bill Clinton.
To be sure, no party leader has mentioned impeachment, but it's clear that Democrats are eagerly searching for "smoking guns" - positive proof that Bush deceived Congress and/or that Cheney helped leak the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame, wife of Bush critic Joseph Wilson.
The "special investigations division" of the minority staff of the House Government Reform Committee has produced a 30-page report alleging that in 125 appearances before the war, Bush, Cheney and other top officials "made 11 misleading statements about the urgency of Iraq's threat, 81 misleading statements about Iraq's nuclear activities, 84 misleading statements about Iraq's chemical and biological capabilities and 61 misleading statements about Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda."
In response to Bush's assertions, backed by voluminous citations, that Democrats, too, looked at U.S. intelligence and declared that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Democrats have shifted ground, declaring either that Bush had privileged information or purposely denied Congress evidence conflicting with his assertions.
The GOP response to that has been to accuse Democrats of partisanship - of accepting Clinton administration WMD assertions as true while now challenging Bush's. Some Republicans also are producing evidence to rebut charges that Bush withheld evidence that would have disproved his WMD claims.
Regardless of whether Democrats ever file articles of impeachment, it's now almost inevitable that Bush will be Topic A in the 2006 election, much as Clinton was in the 1994 and 1998 off-year elections.
In 1994, Republicans capitalized on the collapse of Clinton's health care agenda to win a net 52 House seats and regain control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. But in 1998, even though Clinton's approval rating descended as low as 39 percent after disclosures that he lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, Democrats gained five House seats after Republicans forecast that they would impeach him after the election - as they did.
"We overplayed our hand," said Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), who later became chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "The Democrats had better watch out that they don't do the same."
So far, Democrats are at the edge of overplaying their hand. They are riding a wave of popular distrust with Bush's war policy, and they're doing everything possible to boost it. This week, as Senate Minority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was interpreting the Senate as having cast a "vote of no confidence" in Bush's war policy, his spokesman, Jim Manley, declared that "the contrast between Democrats and Republicans could not be clearer.
"On the same day that Senate Democrats outlined a path for success in Iraq, Republicans launched another round of misleading smears in order to improve their fortunes," he said. Manley told me he had heard no discussion among Democratic Senators about impeaching Bush. But the level of contempt for Bush among Democrats certainly rivals that among Republicans for Clinton. If they think they have a "smoking gun," I doubt Democrats can restrain themselves.
Mort Kondracke is the Executive Editor of Roll Call.
Send To a Friend | Printer Friendly Mort Kondracke • Author Archive • Email Author • Print This Article • Send Article To a Friend
More Commentary • The Matter With Kansas - Charles Krauthammer • What I Learned This Week - Larry Kudlow • Bush's War Strategy Crumbling - E.J. Dionne
More from Mort Kondracke • U.S. Must Match Tsunami Relief Effort in Pakistan • It's Clear, No One Truly Wants to Reduce Deficits • Some Senators Act Like Adults; Leaders Are Kids
DEMOCRATS = TRAITORS - say it loud and clear.
No he wasn't. The only person, (and I mean the ONLY person) talking impeachment was crazy Henry B. Gonzales D-TX who was already suffering from advanced dementia.
Don't go looking for something you're not going to be glad you found.
Quote: "GWB is probably the most hated President since Lincoln."
First off, then Bush is in excellent company. Secondly, Lincoln, as unpopular as he was, still won re-election and survived politically. Bottom line, no party has ever won a damn thing by being "anti-war" during a war (even when that war is unpopular).
GHWB was nervous about impeachment, I've seen the interview where he stated so. That is why they had a vote in the Seante and that is why he spent so much time building such an overwhelming coalition.
Bring it on, Dhimmies!!! We will be delighted to shove your insane lies and misinformation right back up your nose!!
And, after the dust settles, it will be the Dhimmies liking their wounds, NOT the 'Pubbies.
"The 2006 election is shaping up to be a bitterly fought referendum on President Bush - to the point where, if Democrats win, they just might impeach him."
It is quite clear we simply have a bunch of spoiled brats, looking for something to do. 100% of this kind of action is directly related to the events of the Clinton administration(do you think they've been humiliated?). Someone, has carefully orchestrated all the chaos our country has seen in recent months(Is that spoiled brat behavior, or what?). Could the lack of participation by eligible AMERICAN voters be the cause for this?--Evil flourishes when good men do nothing, and that is what has happened. Since our media has become quite spineless along with many political leaders, voting is all that's left. If most people still refuse to exercise their voting voice(for any lame excuse they choose to dig up), then our people will lose that right. And we're ALL to blame, if that happens.
I think this hate of our President began during the campaign when each candidate running for the Republican nomination was asked who their favorite author was, some said Mark Twain, others named famous authors, Candidate Bush asnwered Jesus Christ. The MSM was flabergasted, the dems snickered behind their hands. The audacity of someone mentioning our Lord as a famous author and a favorite one was beyond their capacity. There the tunnel of hate was begun...
Nixon was hated for decades before he became president, but not at this level.
One of the reasons GWB is so hated is because they lost the House in 94, and thought it was only a matter of time before they regained control. They think THEY belong in power, and can't deal with the thought that perhaps they don't.
You keep forgetting, Dims don't care if they are caught in a lie. History for them starts when they want it to and it doesn't matter about the facts IT IS ONLY ABOUT THE ACCUSATION! Say it loud enough and people begin to believe it.
Not hyperbole. I feel very strongly that the country is teetering on the thin edge of civil war as the majority of the Dems and (many in the) GOP have moved closer to the extreme elements that were once called "kooks" and now called "base". Clinton was impeached for lying while under oath...Bush has done nothing of the sort, and if the RATs do pull off an illegal impeachment it will mean that we have no voice in our electorial process, no democratic order, no government: IOW Something worth fighting for!
LOSERS!
Re: your #3:
Methinks you're too optimistic about who will pick up arms first.
An impeachment trial on "Bush lied" won't happen: far too many Democrats are on record advocating overthrowing Saddam, Congress lawfully approved the war with significant Democratic support (including Hillary), and general lying (even if true) is not exactly a viable charge against a politician.
The real problem is that there is a large leftist contingent that is whipping itself into an aboslute frenzy, absolutely forcused on ejecting Bush - by any means necessary. These are people who hate the 2nd Amendment, but who will have no qualms about exercising that right (in a very wrong way) when they, in not too long, decide that no other viable option exists.
I occasionally listen to Air America. They are seething with fury at Bush, having changed the "Bush lied" mantra from an addressable/debatable charge to to an unquestionable axiom. There is no debate with them, they have dubbed Bush a criminal, fear for their nation, decided he must be removed, and feel they cannot make progress in lawful means of removal. I am concerned about their choice for their next steps - and it won't take many to make that choice to make things, um, interesting.
They're just looking for a leader and a line. Rue the day they find 'em.
That's what they called it and worse when we all gathered in front of the Vice President's mansion and told the Gorons to "Get out of Cheney's house".
We are not so far away as all that from making the point with arms in my most humble opinion.
"We're Democrats and we're so stupid that a colossal idiot like George W. Bush tricked all of us into supporting the Iraq War."
I have no problem with their seething anger, tirades, or temper rages...I do have a problem with a legally elected president being impeached over a bogus charge (Bush has not lied under oath nor suborned perjury, i.e. Clinton; nor participated in obstruction of justice, i.e. Nixon).
Notice that the rhetoric and attacks have greatly increased ever since Alito was nominated and it was clear almost immediately that the 'Rats have no chance to stop him. The 'Rats have lost the House, the Senate and the White House; their last and most important bastion, the Courts, is now in danger of falling as well. They are DESPERATE to regain power, and would lose the WOT if necessary to get back in.
They hate GWB because he's kicked their sorry asses out of the seats of power. Sucks to be a 'Rat.
Hey Zoe, the "lying about sex" was under oath...and is called perjury in most courtrooms--an impeachable offense!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.