I’m not yet ready to say that the launching of a new war is really what all this is about, but it would not be the first time that this gang had lied us into a conflict. And the possibility seems real enough to justify thinking through the implications of the possibility.

2) It is clear that there are many in Congress –including some Republicans– who want to stop this administration from unilaterally escalating and expanding America’s involvement in war in that region. A variety of possible checks are being discussed, from using the power of the purse to revoking the president’s authorization to use force to the War Powers Act.

Even if the Bushites are NOT trying to expand the war beyond Iraq, their incredible defiance not only of the message from the electorate in November and of the Baker-Hamilton report, but of reality, seems to be evoking significant opposition not only from Democrats in Congress but from Republicans as well.

3) It is also pretty clear that the Bushites will not recognize the authority of Congress to prevent the president from doing whatever he wishes to do. Not only is there a long record of this administration’s making claims of virtually unchecked power for the “commander-in-chief,” but such statements are continuing as Congress and the administration appear to be moving toward a constitutional confrontation over these matters of checks and balances.

4) The question then arises over how this confrontation will be resolved. Perhaps the issues could be taken to the Supreme Court. With that scenario, I wonder two things: first, would it be possible to get a resolution in a timely way, i.e. before the “commander-in-chief” might have taken the actions forbidden him by Congress; second, could one count on the Court –with its new members Roberts and Alito– to come down against the Bushite interpretation in which the president gets the power of an autocrat? Might Congress decide that resolving the specific issues through the Court would not be a workable solution?

That leads to the final point.

5) Perhaps it is in the context of such a struggle that a bi-partisan majority in Congress could conceivably decide that the best way to block the Bushites from compounding the disaster they’ve created would be simply to remove them from office. After all, it would not be difficult at all to find the legal bases of “high crimes and misdemeanors” on which to base an impeachment.

Thus, the Bushites’ latest gambit may change the picture regarding the chances for impeachment. Previously, Congress might well have calculated that with less than two years left in Bush’s second term, removing him from office would not achieve enough to warrant the mess and hassle of an impeachment. But now, if enough in Congress feel that an impeachment is the surest way to prevent this gang from creating a whole new disaster, immediate removal might seem important and not superfluous.

Previously, it has seemed that not that many members of Congress have felt, as many of us do, that the defense of something so abstract as the Constitution and the rule of law required them to expose and punish the lawlessness of this regime. But even for people who don’t take seriously such abstractions, the concrete matter of expanding the present disaster into a still larger disaster of regional war might provoke them into action.

I’m not saying that I necessarily expect that things will unfold in this way. But this now seems at least a genuine possibility.

The recklessness and ruthlessness of the Bushites continually surprise, and take us into waters dark and dangerous and unforeseen. 

Name

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment