Skip to content

Impeach Dick, then George

A new poll finds that 54% of Americans favor impeaching Dick Cheney, against a mere 46% that favor impeaching Bush. There’s something to be said for going after Dick first. He’s so massively unpopular. That 54% number could easily increase if it was tied to the argument that impeaching Cheney was a way to put pressure on Bushco to stop the war.

Dennis Kucinich has introduced an impeachment resolution against Cheney, consisting of three articles. Robert Greenwald produced this video supporting the resolution, which has now, apparently, picked up 13 co-sponsors.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEzPVP6EVRk[/youtube]

The charges barely scratch the surface. He masterminded a criminal conspiracy in the Plame affair, which is in fact a criminal violation, as opposed to the abuse of office in the three charges. There is, for better or worse, no law against politicians lying to the American people.

In the past I’ve opposed impeachment mostly for practical reasons-that it would be a political loser for the Democrats. That might still be true, but I’ve pretty much come around to the view that it’s something they should do. It could be managed well, if they could frame the issues right. One way, perhaps, is to argue that Bush has forced them into it by consistently refusing to bow to the will of the majority of the American people. If the only way to stop a war is to impeach the president, then that’s what needs to be done. Both Bush and Cheney have committed high crimes and misdemeanors sufficient to impeach a hundred presidents. The Libby pardon is only the latest, but perhaps the clearest. It is so obvious that Bush did it to protect himself. And, as others have pointed out, no less an expert than James Madison said using the pardon power to hide your own criminality warranted impeachment:

In the same [Virginia ratifying] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to “pardon crimes which were advised by himself” or, before indictment or conviction, “to stop inquiry and prevent detection.” James Madison responded:

[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty..

Finally, isn’t it strange that impeachment has no traction in Washington, given the numbers above. There was never a point when anywhere near that number of people wanted Clinton impeached. Partly, that’s because the Republicans unwittingly (at least I hope unwittingly-could they have seen this coming?) inoculated Bush by making the impeachment remedy suspect, because the Clinton charade was so patently political. But the Democrats could overcome that by carefully framing the issue as a situation in which they’ve been forced to act.

4 Comments