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
Only one on your list was impeached (Clinton). Nixon would have been impeached, but he resigned to avoid it.
The instant Bush leaves office, the attempts to try him for war crimes will start, and they will not end until he dies or is dragged in front of the ICC.
Keep talking a$$holes.
Your making more and more sure you won't even get ANY gains in '06, let alone gain more seats.
Jackson, like The Rapist, was impeached but not convicted.
Nah. You obviously weren't around when Nixon was in office. And the hate the left had for Reagan was quite substantial, but he was very personable and it was a little harder to "publicly" villify him. A DIM I know was visibly angry when Reagan got a state funeral and honors. He said Reagan should have been chucked into the ground.
The left has always hated (and I mean HATED) republican presidents. But in the past they were not in the minority in both houses of congress at the same time. ANY republican in the WH right now would be just as hated. DIMs are only polite to republicans when the DIMs are in absolute control.
Thanks. I think it was Quincy my historian freind cited.
Doh! Thanks. You know, I've been making that confabulation for years! (I suppose because of the similarity of the names and because Jackson also had very rocky relations with Congress.)
What's their impeachment charge gonna be?
"Well...he believed the same things we did...but the thing is, we Democrats are idiots...and, and, and..he shoulda known better."
They figure the more they use the word 'impeach,' the less significance the masses will attach to it; they'd like it to become a routine thing, so they can m9inimize the effects that i42 had on the US.
They are convinced that the masses are really stoopid.
Kondracke. What a dufus. Always wondered where he got his "nearly always wrong" information and now I know: Babs Streisand.
"My concern is that, failing impeachment, they won't stop. The leftists are getting into a "by any means necessary" mindset.
The instant Bush leaves office, the attempts to try him for war crimes will start, and they will not end until he dies or is dragged in front of the ICC."
Yes. There is a terrible wickedness going on their crazy little world! These people operate from the premise of divide and conquer. Look at our nation. Is is not already divided? Conquering is all that's left for them to do. But, as I've said before, in order to maintain our nation, the eligible AMERICAN voters must cast their vote and be heard! Otherwise, we will cease to be America(as we know it).
Keep up the good posts, teddy.
Also remember that at the time of the Senate vote for Iraq in 2002, the Senate was in control of the Democrats. I think we had it after 2000, but only narrowly, and when Jim Jeffords (aka "Jumpin' Jim") left, that gave control to them.
We must make clear to the American people that in the year 2005, there is no such thing anymore as an inconsequential election.
BUMP Post 58
You give them too much credit for patience.
Rush predicted this back after BEFORE GWB's election
I stand corrected - wasn't sure when this was predicted. We'll see how the MSM reacts, but if Alito flies through, you could see impeachment BS leading up to '06 elections.
If not anything, to raise $$ and turn out the base.
I'm counting on it. They will make themselves look like idiots as they have done in the past.
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.