A Group Therapy Session
January 24, 2008 on 3:21 pm | In Local, National |
One story on page A3 of this week’s LJ that probably caught everyone’s eye concerned a group of Salisbury petition signers who want to hold a town meeting in which residents would vote on whether to endorse a resolution calling on Rep. Chris Murphy to start an investigation of the Bush administration.
The Board of Selectmen rightly refused to hold a town meeting on the advice of the town’s legal counsel that state law does not permit Connecticut’s towns to pass resolutions on matters over which they have no authority or powers of enforcement. The selectmen did agree to a special board meeting (held Jan. 16) in which the signers could air their grievances.
Despite evident frustration on the part of the petitioners at the meeting, the selectmen held firm. Both parties were respectful and a few conservatives even spoke out against holding the meeting at all.
I know many of the petitioners. They are honorable, decent people who are upset at the Bush administration and its alleged misdeeds. The self-described “instigator” of the petition, Dr. Bill Gallup, clearly would prefer impeachment, but has settled for milder language in his resolution since he knows Murphy does not support bringing the president and vice president up on charges.
But I think the petitioners are missing the mark here. To get the town formally involved in these sorts of issues is, as Michael Walsh said, “simply a supererogatory exercise in Bush Derangement Syndrome.”
Dr. Gallup presented scant evidence of crimes committed. He mostly cited a litany of policy and tactical differences with Bush and Cheney, including “stonewalling or subverting much progress on solving our problems while spending us toward bankruptcy.”
Dr. Gallup’s list also included cutting health programs for children while “demanding funding” for the war in Iraq — an example which he characterized as “egregious.” Dr. Gallup cited other unspecified examples, as reported “in the media,” of “autocratic, possibly unconstitutional behavior.”
There are a couple of factors that appear the be frustrating the petitioners: 1) They don’t have compelling evidence of lawbreaking and: 2) Public opinion is against them. George Bush is a profoundly unpopular president, but even most of his detractors don’t want to go down the road of impeachment for second time in 10 years.
As for Al Ginouves’ assertion that “we have been betrayed by the media and by our own Congress,” let me speak first to press coverage. If you told the Bush administration they have received mostly favorable press from the MSM, they would laugh long and hard.
Sure, the media dropped the ball on WMDs and some aspects of the Iraq war, but all the other deeds cited by the petitioners (e.g. warrantless wiretapping, Guantanamo, the abject corruption of the GOP Congress that preceded this one) have been covered at great length. Indeed, Dr. Gallup cited media reports of Bush’s alleged misdeeds in his statement. Which is it? Did the media drop the ball or are they the only reason we are staying informed?
As for Congress, if the American people wanted lots of investigations of the Bush administration, then the Democratic Congress would comply. After all, Congress isn’t exactly a profile in institutional courage. I don’t see how the Bush haters have been betrayed by anyone.
The petitioners are correct that presidents (i.e. Clinton) have been impeached for less. I thought the impeachment of Bill, for example, was a disgrace and a waste of time. The recent forum in Salisbury wasn’t “fundamentally disgraceful,” as Walsh put it, but it served as little more than a group therapy session. That makes it more suitable for a church than a Town Hall.
P.S. And Curtis, I think you were right to tell those guys from Washington, Conn., to get lost. And thank you, Michael Walsh, for teaching me a new word. That one’s a doozy.
7 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
I recognize that town meetings passing resolutions in favor of impeachment is a bit, well, overreaching.
I recognize that this impeachment process has to be pretty much sequential — i.e., first Bush, then Cheney — and having Cheney anywhere near the nuclear football is the best definition of a death wish that I can think of.
Notwithstanding these two truly gating issues, it does seem a pity that the worst president in US history — and I think that assertion will stand up to historical examination — will escape the shame of impeachment, for that is what it is. Poor standings in the polls become a footnote in the historical record, or at very best a subordinate clause. But from the first that I ever heard the word, I knew that only one president had ever been impeached, and that it was Andrew Johnson.
So Bush/Cheney will escape this oppobrium to become just another VanBuren or Harding. I guess the issue really is not impeachment per se, but fairness. Doing a truly appallingly bad job — pretty clearly the worst job ever done — really does deserve some sort of recognition.
Comment by Geoff Brown — January 24, 2008 #
Geoff brings up a good point. I’ve wondered what would happen if Bush were impeached and driven out of office as I think he should be. Then Cheney would legally succeed him. THAT would be worse than what we have now. Even though we would have less than a year of him, imagine the damage and carnage! The frying pan or the fire…. the fire or the frying pan…. which do we want? Maybe we ought to impeach both at once! That would be a first for the history books. In any event, while it is a nice gesture, small town meetings aren’t where impeachment proceedings belong, regardless of what the federal officials may deserve.
Comment by mark — January 24, 2008 #
Geoff,
As you suggest, impeachment is a political act, not really a judicial process. Having said that, I don’t think the distinction of having been a bad president (or even the worst) meets that test. There should be some legal basis for it.
And Andrew Johnson was the not the only president ever impeached. So was William Jefferson Clinton. My, how quickly we forget. As for Johnson, there were two attempts to impeach him but in both cases he was never removed from office.
Mark,
Please list the “high crimes and misdemeanors” you think Bush and Cheney have committed. I see a lot of policy differences people have with those two but not much else.
Comment by Terry — January 25, 2008 #
Terry, I think that Geoff’s careful phrasing “(b)ut from the first that I ever heard the word, I knew that only one president had ever been impeached, and that it was Andrew Johnson” makes clear that he hadn’t forgotten the farcical late 20th century example.
We’ll probably never know what criminal activities Bush and other members of his administration engaged in; they appear to be rather more careful about covering their tracks than some previous ones. (How many years of White House e-mails are apparently irretrievably lost?) It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to think that the whole debacle of Iraq, from the blatant falsehoods used to gin up support for the war to the thoughtless and incompetent execution of the post-invasion administration of the country might meet the political criteria for impeachment.
My personal view is similar to yours, Terry. Overall, the Bush administration has been more incompetent than evil. I think Congressional censure, which was the unadministered but appropriate punishment for Bill Clinton, would also be about right for George W. Bush. It’s highly unlikely this will happen because like me, the vast majority of Americans, including many Republicans, are just tired of Bush and the current administration. Wey don’t want to even think about them any more; wy just want them to go.
It’s hard to imagine how history could turn out such that GWB would look “prescient, if incompetent”, rather than simply “incompetent.” For someone who seems so driven to be better than and his father and seen to be so, the harsh judgment of history is perhaps the stiffest punishment he could endure. (Well, unless through some extremely unlikely turn of events, as a very old man he is tried tried for war crimes…)
Comment by Steve Potter — January 25, 2008 #
Steve,
You’re correct about Geoff. Even with his AARP card, Geoff has a better memory than that. And, as you rightly note, he is always careful with his wording. I was merely sloppy in my reading.
Comment by Terry — January 25, 2008 #
Impeach the electorate…
we (they, not me!) voted him in…TWICE!
Comment by Marshall Miles — January 26, 2008 #
Where’s Richard Nixon when you need him?
Comment by Patrick Sullivan — January 27, 2008 #