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
If democrats get the votes, they will not only impeach Bush, they'll convict him and throw him out of office.
And if my grandmother had balls....
While it is good to see the White House finally responding to the Democrat accusations, a response based on refutation alone will not be enough. The President must hit them with the big fact that 9/11 happened and fighting this war there was far better than the Democrat alternative of fighting it here.
They can try, but they can't impeach a sitting President without evidence.
Me too. At least, I don't THINK they are that stupid.
You're missing my point.
Leftists bring charges.
Impeachment vote fails.
Leftists say "well, that's the Constitutionally-determined will of the people, a lawful jury found Bush innocent of lying, guess we're wrong, let's drop this whole 'Bush lied' thing and go save some snail darters." NOT - and that leaves what option in their seething-with-fury minds?
Impeachment needs 51 votes, not evidence.
Sorry, make that "a majority vote".
Wait until after the '06 election when they are in the minority. If you think they are spineless now, wait until you see how they react to losing power. Most will do whatever the Democrats tell them to do which isn't a whole lot different from now!
Political hatred can damage the recipient, and the country, but backlash is common and the haters are usually damaged more. I once tried to come up with a list of Presidents who experienced unusual levels of vituperation from their opposition:
Granted that one was assasinated, another shot, and two impeached, but they were ALL re-elected. (However an historian friend of mind claims that the John Adams -- don't remember which one -- should be included, and neither Adams was reelected.)
If I were you, I would not put any money on your theory. Once the Republicans are in the minority, they will cave to everything the Democrats want hoping to appease them and the voters so they can keep what little they have left. Not too much different in what they're doing right now and we haven't even had the election to put the Democrats in charge!
So Congress can impeach just because they feel like it? Gee, and all along I thought there were certain criteria that needed to be met.
Sounds like our founding fathers screwed up.
John Q. Adams.
He was nearly impeached for having the audacity to want to build an observatory with government money.
Impeachment is merely the drawing up of charges and approval to go ahead with a trial in the Senate. That's where the evidence comes in.
The impeachment proceedings are most like a Grand Jury, and we all know you can indict a ham sandwich.
We certainly didn't think that liberals, not just politicians, were going to allow Bill Clinton to stand as the only President to be impeached since Andrew Johnson in the 1860's? This has been a carefully orchestrated process, and now that they are getting poll numbers which reflect Bush's dwindling support, they are in full battle gear. Nevermind our troops, our international reputation, our economy, and our loss of over 3000 human beings on 9-11. They just better hope the polling data is correct.
I agree.
You may find this an interesting read:
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=13312
Ah, gotcha. Well, they don't have the votes now. Doubtful they will either.
My concern is that, failing impeachment, they won't stop. The leftists are getting into a "by any means necessary" mindset.
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.