We have been treated this week to an unmistakable demonstration of the utter contempt the White House "team" harbors for American Constitutional government - in both foreign policy and the administration of justice.
The question then: What is to be done?
On the war, authors, diarists, and commenters on this forum have kicked around the various cuts, slices, thrusts, and parliamentary handles that might be taken to exercise the august congressional "power of the purse" - to relieve our soldiers of the impossible burden they have been handed, and to brake the headlong rush into imperial trainwreck, down the track just over the hill in the mid-east. The turn of the budget cycle has been cited, to the effect that all the Democratic leadership has to do is to refuse to pass a funding bill that doesn't put a date certain on troop deployment. Some have noted - in the past few days, if not before - that considering the lawless course so far pursued in the interest of BushCo, we have no guarantee that Cheney and 2000 of his closest friends won't decide that "Congressmoney" is really just a quaint idea anyway.
Any budget based scenario to curtail the occupation has, IMHO, a fatal flaw. As I opined in a comment earlier today:
This, of course, is exactly the dolchstoss that BushCo wants to take into the next election: Congress defunds the war; Bush says "America can't afford to lose" (he said that already, once or twice); Iraq goes to hell (whatever we do, is becoming the consensus position among those who have a clue); American soldiers, lacking armor and other equipment (they lack same already) are slaughtered in their hundreds, demoralized by indecision in Washington; scenes of helecopters evacuating diplomats and "loyal Iraqi's" from the Green Zone. Ergo, ipso facto, "Democrats lost the war."
It ain't pretty, but it is a political strategy made in Roveland.
And, I submit, this precise calculation is what holds Congress in thrall, and will continue to do so, for the rest of this term in regard to "the war." We are headed for nothing but disappointment in Democratic leadership hoping for salvation through the purse. Republicans, periodically reminded by the headmen of this framework, will be reluctant, especially in the pivotal Senate, to call this White House bet. It will, over time, as public disgust with Bushism waxes, look more and more like the best chance they have to hold on to the possibility of regained legislative power - and any future for brand "Republican Party." So, as much as I want us out of Iraq - and yes, I was against the war before most Americans were for it - there is little practical value in beating ourselves up over our powerlessness in this area of policy.
On the other prong of contemptuous developments, we have Harriet "No Show" Miers. Here, I think, the White House may have made themselves actually vulnerable to congressional action. To gain some context on the possibilities here, let us review the circumstances that surrounded the vote in the House Judiciary Committee on the first article of impeachment against Richard Nixon, on July 12, 1974, as reported by The Washington Post:
The impeachment inquiry, which began seven months ago, was provoked principally by Watergate but other issues covered by a proposed Article II charging abuse of power cause more concern among some members.
Some Republicans are most concerned about allegations that Mr. Nixon misused such sensitive agencies as the Internal Revenue Service and the Central Intelligence Agency for political purposes.
Others are most concerned about Mr. Nixon's defiance of committee subpoenas, which is now included in Article II as a contempt of Congress count, but may be broken out into a separate article. An attempt may be made to offer a fourth article on tax evasion, but it is not expected to be approved.
The obstruction of justice article approved last night accuses Mr. Nixon of making false statements to investigators, withholding relevant evidence, approving or counseling perjury, interfering with the Justice Department's investigation, approving payment of hush money to Watergate defendants, passing on information about the investigation to his aides who were suspects, making false statements to the American people about White House involvement in Watergate and causing defendants to believe they might receive clemency for the silence.
A bipartisan vote authorized the Judiciary Committee to send the article to the House floor for debate.
The vote was 27 to 11, with 6 of the committee's 17 Republicans joining all 21 Democrats in voting to send the article to the House.
It seems to me that the only way we can assure a real investigation of White House illegalities and abuses of power is to launch an impeachment investigation based on a bill of particulars that authorizes, beyond Constitutional question, such an investigation. Perhaps this is just what BushCo wants, the final showdown at the constitutional Rubicon. If so, I say let's give it to 'em. Let's call, and raise - it's the only language they understand.
Having said that, and notwithstanding the histrionics of Representative Chris Cannon in the face of the no show of "No Show" Miers, how might a vote go on an article of impeachment charging Gonzales, Cheney, or Bush with obstruction of justice? For the sake of argument, let's say Conyers and colleagues play out the hand on contempt re. Miers, and that Pelosi - seeing a non-avoidable challenge to the rule of law in White House recalcitrance over Miers and other matters of congressional prerogatives with respect to investigation - holds the caucus together on a charge of contempt. Can we count on all the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to vote an article of impeachment? Is it within the realm of possibility that one or more Republicans on the committee will vote to make such an article a "bipartisan" act of Constitutional responsibility?
Below are the members of the House Judiciary Committee. Maybe the time has come to contact them - especially if you are a voter in one of their districts - and begin to give them your views on these matters, and ask them to consider this crucial question.
Democrat
Hon. Berman
(D) California, 28th
Hon. Boucher
(D) Virginia, 9th
Hon. Nadler
(D) New York, 8th
Hon. Scott
(D) Virginia, 3rd
Hon. Watt
(D) North Carolina, 12th
Hon. Lofgren
(D) California, 16th
Hon. Jackson Lee
(D) Texas, 18th
Hon. Waters
(D) California, 35th
Hon. Meehan
(D) Massachusetts, 5th
Hon. Delahunt
(D) Massachusetts, 10th
Hon. Wexler
(D) Florida, 19th
Hon. Sánchez
(D) California, 39th
Hon. Cohen
(D) Tennessee, 9th
Hon. Johnson
(D) Georgia, 4th
Hon. Gutierrez
(D) Illinois, 4th
Hon. Sherman
(D) California, 27
Hon. Weiner
(D) New York, 9th
Hon. Schiff
(D) California, 29th
Hon. Davis
(D) Alabama , 7th
Hon. Wasserman Schultz
(D) Florida, 20th
Hon. Ellison
(D) Minnesota, 5th
Hon. Baldwin
(D) Wisconsin, 2nd
Republican
Hon. Sensenbrenner Jr.
(R) Wisconsin, 5th
Hon. Coble
(R) North Carolina, 6th
Hon. Gallegly
(R) California, 24th
Hon. Goodlatte
(R) Virginia, 6th
Hon. Chabot
(R) Ohio, 1st
Hon. Lungren
(R) California, 3rd
Hon. Cannon
(R) Utah, 3rd
Hon. Keller
(R) Florida, 8th
Hon. Issa
(R) California, 49th
Hon. Pence
(R) Indiana, 6th
Hon. Forbes
(R) Virginia, 4th
Hon. King
(R) Iowa, 5th
Hon. Feeney
(R) Florida, 24th
Hon. Franks
(R) Arizona, 2nd
Hon. Gohmert
(R) Texas, 1st
Hon. Jordan
(R) Ohio, 4th