« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Rice on Iran: Understanding Pelosi on Impeachment
"Beware the leader who tolls the bell of freedom with the rod of tyranny."
In George Orwell's Animal Farm, by the end of the book, there was no distinction between the abusive Farmer and the Animals. The animals, despite their contempt for abuse, took on the role of the abuser. This lesson should not be lost when exploring Pelosi and the decision to not investigate or impeach the President on war crimes.
McClellan's What Happened provides some valuable insight into the DNC's decision not to impeach the President. TPMM shared some of Rice's comments about Iran, and compares her remarks to McClellan's views of her in What Happened. TPMM's comparison should be applied to Pelosi and her views on impeachment.
Let's consider some of McClellan's statements which TPMM raised about Condi, and show what might be happening with Pelosi's decision on impeachment.
GOP Induced Pelosi To Believe She Made The Right Decision
TPMM shares this McClellan comment about Rice, which applies to Pelosi:
"figuring out where the president stood and just carrying out his wishes"
Someone close to the President knows the President has a legal problem; and the solution is to thwart the DNC from impeaching him. The lesson in light of McClellan's book is to explore:
A. How did the GOP formulate a strategy to convince the DNC that inaction on Geneva was the best approach;
B. How did the GOP and President work with DOJ OLC to craft legal arguments suggesting the President had a "higher legal mandate" and Congress could not touch him;
C. To what extent did the GOP work with the DNC legal community and lobbyists to convince the Speaker that any effort to enforce the law against the President would be bad for the DNC.
McClellan contends one of the problems with the Bush Administration has been the permanent political campaign, and legal issues were decided on political interests, not what was best for the Constitution or rule of law. The GOP convinced the DNC and Speaker to do the same: That it was in the DNC's political interests to reward the President with (a) no investigation; (b) no impeachment; (c) no war crimes prosecutions.
Inaction is Cursory Oversight
McClellan might have us believe that Rice's approach to the President is unique to Rice. No, the approach is common within Congress, and one the Speaker embraces:
"expending only cursory effort in helping him understand all the considerations and potential consequences"
Part of the House's job -- as an independent chamber of the Senate, and distinct from the Executive Branch -- is to debate issues, act as a forum for ideas, and ensure the public and government hears a public discussion to raise concerns and risks. The Speaker, in refusing to investigate the president, is, as McClellan said of Rice, ensuring:
A. There is no independent House activity to ensure the issues about the President's alleged war crimes are adequately discussed;
B. There is no public debate of the consequences of that inaction.
The right step is to start the investigation, put the facts on the table, then let the House decide what to do; and review what the risks are if nothing is done. Pelosi has done the opposite and turned the equation upside down, shifting from the Constitution, to whether the DNC will or will not benefit.
McClellan's Book Highlights the GOP and DNC Partisan Agendas, Illegally Trumping the Constitution
She has allegedly illegally introduced to her oath of office a partisan factor which, by default, puts the DNC's political interests -- as Pelosi and the GOP define them for the DNC -- before the Constitution.
It defies reason for anyone to believe Pelosi is an independent thinker, yet she's repeating what McClellan accused the President of doing: Engaging in partisan objectives under the guise of defense of the Constitution.
Rice and Pelosi have enabled the President. They are on two different sides of the same coin of Tyranny.
Our job as citizens is to accept the Congress, not just Rice, has largely endorsed McClellan's propaganda, and in doing so, has failed as a government. The original problem was the President's illegal activity; the subsequent problem is the Congress' decision not to aggressively challenge that illegal activity with an impeachment investigation.
A credible impeachment investigation, in light of McClellan's comments about Rice, would put the evidence on the table; and the House would discuss the consequences of inaction. Pelosi has trumped the House as the President has trumped the Constitution. Pelosi, on her own, says she knows more than the House, and without any evidence, can decide what is best for the DNC's political objectives.
Pelosi cannot challenge the President because Pelosi is doing the same as the President: Unilaterally deciding her judgment trumps the informed input from others. She and the President, along with Rove, Rice, and Feith, are the same peas in the same pod of tyranny. McCain is bringing them back. The DNC plans to keep Pelosi as speaker. This isn't change.
McClellan's comments about Rice show us Pelosi through her inaction heartily endorses the President's war crimes. Pelosi and the DNC leadership, not just the GOP leadership, need to be examined in light of their Geneva obligations. Where appropriate, they should be prosecuted for alleged war crimes.
Real Change: New Leadership, New Oversight
Pelosi needs to be lawfully removed as Speaker; and the House needs to immediately confront these war crimes issues. Then the House must openly debate whether it wants to put the Constitution before or after the partisan objectives of the DNC and GOP. It's irrelevant there are only a few months before the election. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. A decision not to investigate war crimes might be a subsequent offense under the laws of war.
Time for the Senate and House to get to work. They have a job to do. The elections are designed to ensure accountability; not serve as an excuse to do nothing. If there is no action on these war crimes, the public should continue their discussions on lawfully removing from power the leadership in both parities; and discussing new structures of oversight for the United States government. McClellan got it right, but was late. The public needs to provide the leadership sorely missing from the GOP and DNC.
Advertisement
Comments (11)
I think that The Speaker is wise to rule out impeachment. It should not have happened for Clinton and Johnson either. Impeachment should not be picked up every time the public chooses the president and congress to belong to opposing parties--a situation which a great many people like to see knowing quite well there will be conflict. There are elections for the president every 4 years, and these are the times to remember exactly what happened during the president's previous term.
June 4, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ted Weatherbee,
Thank you for reviewing the comments above. You've contradicted yourself, and have provided nothing to justify why Pelosi should not be removed; nor that we stop a discussion of new oversight of the US government.
That was a comment you sent to the National Math Panel in 2006. Here is the header information from the email you sent:
This is your salutation:
This is the contact information you disclosed:
It is commendable for an educator to take a position on integrity. The question is whether integrity or consistency will or will not trump the Constitution. They do not.
The error is to believe GOP impeachment of Clinton should or should not be the standard to measure whether the United States should or should not investigate this President. Some are proposing to do nothing because the GOP may or may not have abused power. That is not an argument. It is an excuse.
The question is whether we will or will not embrace a need for change in the oversight of the United States government. You have supported change in the past. Today, you are supporting the status quo: Inaction.
The new information: Bush is not the same as Clinton.
Perhaps we can have a discussion over why some support change in one forum; but change in another form is feared, opposed, or not worthy of consideration. You claimed you respected some because they embraced needed change; yet you ask others to respect your assertion now that change is not needed. By your own argument, you would ask others to not respect you. That is a silly argument.
What if there was leadership to conduct an investigation, then make an informed decision whether or not to impeach? It cannot be said the outcome of the Senate trial -- without starting an investigation into those facts -- is certain or relevant to the House Constitutional decision. This would ask that we count the votes before they are cast. Similar to exiling a student for eternity because they refused to conform with arbitrary standards: Claiming we know best for a student in 1st Grade; then forever abusing them because they do not live up to irrelevant expectations by graduation. The error is on those with unreasonable expectations, not those who live as they choose.
This case with the President is different. The President, unlike a student, does not have discretion to seek how own path; but is highly regulated by law and the Constitution, FISA, and the laws of war how he will use his finite power. The needed change is to confront the President as we would a wayward, undisciplined student. Refusing to change would ask students to celebrate school administrators who argue about integrity, but refuse to hold public officials to the same standards of integrity they expect of students, their peers, or academics.
Students who see this inconsistency should rightly question the leadership of the nation, the integrity of their educators, and the willingness of the American public to apply their education. This President and Congress have defied their oaths, refused to do their jobs, and no student should ever get the inclination from any educator that this reckless approach to governance is acceptable or worthy of emulation.
The refusal to change is not a supportable decision. It is a requirement when the law, Constitution, FISA, and Geneva conventions are clear; and there is evidence of illegal activity. Students expect leadership, whether they can articulate this or not is secondary. It is arguably a double standard for educators to lecture the world about the principles of American education, but fail to show students by example the fruits of that education in the form of competent governance, oversight, and adequate compliance with the law.
The student population has a reasonable basis to question those who talk about change on one day; but refuse to budge on another. the Constitution has not changed; what has changed is whether the Congress believes it can or cannot change. That is irrelevant. Congress either changes and does its job to investigate; or Congress is complicit with the war crimes.
As to your specific comment:
It is not wise for the Speaker, without examining facts, to rule out impeachment. That is not change. Whether impeachment should or should not have happened to Clinton or Johnson is irrelevant. Impeachment is a tool to check the abuse of power. It is not a trial, but an action of the House to gather facts and charge someone with a trial. Impeachment does not mean there is reckless conduct.
It cannot be said that anyone "quite well" knows anything: There has been no investigation. You have a flawed argument and are appealing to ignorance not reason, as one might otherwise reasonably expect of an American educator.
You've provided no evidence that impeachment has been "picked up every time". We have the opposite: The GOP and DNC have made an excuse not to use that tool to examine facts. the question is whether impeachment as a toold to investigate is or isn't warranted. In this case with President Bush, who refused to cooperate on the record with inquiry, the House is right to use this tool to wake the President up from his delusional beliefs. He is not above the law.
The Framers created the House and Senate as two different chambers. We have separation of pwoers. By Design there is a conflict. that conflict is not something to be avoided.
It is irrelevant that there are elections every four years. An impeachment investigation must, by definition, fall either before, after, or across an election. It cannot happen "at some other time".
You've not well stated your argument. You ask that we remember what happened in the President's previous term. That is meaningless drivel. We already had an election, the promise of change, but that change has not happened. Change means discussing new oversight for the US government, not making excuses to accept the status quo on the false promise it might be change.
June 4, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
testing,
It is my belief that Madam Speaker and others ( certainly Congresswoman Jane Harmon ) may very well be implicated in war crimes committed by the gwb43 , & that is why we have taken impeachment off the table.
What recourse do we have after the election that we might implement to verify that we do not have leadership in the Democratic Appartus that have been enabling bushcheney all these past several years ,..?
June 4, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is the presumptive DNC nominee for President. But this has no relationship to the House Constitutional obligation to enforce and defend the Constitution. The Speaker is not the same as the House. The Speaker, as a person and office, can be challenged by the House.
We should contact the Hillary-supporters; and work with McCain supporters to find DNC-GOP common ground to challenge Pelosi.
You asked about verifying they have not enabled something. I don't think we need to wait until the election to verify that; we know it already: There's been no impeachment investigation.
The question is whether the DNC leadership, that has enabled the President, will or will not get challenged. It's time to remind them they could be found complicit with war crimes:
A. War crimes investigations; introduction of resolutions at local level to conduct war crimes investigations; support efforts to remove Pelosi as Speaker.
B. Oath of office prosecutions, 5 USC 3331.
C. Enforcement of Nuremberg precedents through State Attorney Generals.
D. More House Rule 603 efforts at the State Level, putting Congress on notice to conduct an impeachment investigation.
E. State investigation/disbarment actions against Members of Congress, Staff counsel, and others who are attorneys.
F. State Attorney General prosecutions against Members of Congress for not ensuring the States have access to an enforcement mechanism for the laws of war. States have standing because without this enforcement of the laws of war, the States are being asked to illegally provide contract support for war crimes.
Talk more about what you want to see happen:
June 4, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Testing, OUTSTANDING piece! You are, without a doubt, my favorite blogger here. Without. A. Doubt.
Al, I think you are quite correct in that many of the people in office right now are fearful of being implicated in the crimes that this administration have committed. I don't doubt for a moment that there is a large amount of self preservation going on.
And I hope there will be a lingering fearfulness which will have many looking over their shoulders for years to come...until the right world court comes along to try, convict and imprison whomever that should be.
No person and no nation should be above the law! I don't care who they are or what office they may hold. Hitler was chancellor. Edi Amin? Pot Pol? If I tried to list all of them, I would run out of space. No matter what TedMN says, this is not political sport. This is high crimes. This is treason. This is a crime against our country, our constitution; not to mention the numerous crimes against humanity elsewhere. And this is, without a doubt, more than enough impeachable offenses to be (or to have been) acted upon. Alas, at this point, time is nigh. The world court will have to take over. And that is just fine with me. It is unlikely that any administration will support crimes against a previous POTUS or VPOTUS so this will have to go to a world court.
Bush Administration officials have been charged with war crimes. In time, I am fully confident, this will be corrected.
June 4, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The notion of GOP / Demmocratic common ground is a good idea - maybe the middle will be better able to defend the Constitution-and remove Pelosi . The ground up demand for accountabilty is also a very good idea.
I realize thats its a battle that most be made in the House - But perhaps a catalyst for this might be the town hall meetings that the two nominees will probably having soon. Maybe we could get Sen Hagel & former Sen Chafee as moderators for a town hall meeting centering around war crimes and what should be done about them after bushcheney leave office...
June 4, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the idea of a Town Hall meeting to raise these issues. This is, in part, how the House Rule 603 effort -- passing State proclamations calling on the Congress to investigate and impeach Bush/Cheney -- got rolling.
The Senate now needs to discuss its plan to start reviewing this war crimes evidence. Making the excuse, "We have an election" is irrelevant.
June 4, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?everyman&1
Petition to remove Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker could use more signers. The Corporatocracy CONgress is not going to CHANGE without effort - we know that. I call attention to some of the grievous wrongs done by the Clintons that have been coverd up - see Peter F. Paul. Yet the information warfare continues in the MSM. It's not yet been exposed.
Enough suffering for everyone of conscience on the planet has gone on that must now be resolved. Nancy never logged a single telphone call, fax, email on IMPEACHMENT. Why petition the government if no one does anything about it ?
The Democrats are afraid WAR CRIMES charges will be filed over Kosova, as they should be.
June 5, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the first time I have seen this petition ladybroadoak thank you for posting it here - can it be linked to wexlerwantshearings? And is Congressman Wexler prepared to support Pelosi's removal too ?
This might be a tactical political "bridge to far"... but down here in Central Texas some moderate GOP'ers are talking up the idea of removing all the corrupt republican appartus brought in by turdblossom, as a means to resurrect the Republican party - This could be an opening to remove Pelsoi - the good government argument can be made to advance progressive agenda - and be bi-partisan ,,,
June 5, 2008 5:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
What in the world has given you even the slightest inkling that anything is going to change
in Washington.
Pelosi is just another frustrated individual who's getting richer and richer, and she'd had sex with the devil on the Capital Lawn for a vote or a dime.
CONTINUE TO DANCE AMERICA . . . .the politicians
and preachers wake up every morning, look in the mirror, smirk, and say "What bullshit can I feed the dumb bastards I convinced to vote for me TODAY?", turn away, and say, "Oh! I'll think of something."
KEEP ON DANCING AMEICA . . . Don't dare look at whose fiddling.
June 5, 2008 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
buckheaddad
There always have been incremental changes in our History -or sometimes abrupt painful change -such as the Civil War. But we have had change - so you are welcomed to be a naysayer - but progressive change is coming -
Look how far we have come from the Missouri Compromise - or how we overcame jiM crow ..
June 5, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment