Posted on 11/18/2005 6:53:55 AM PST by teddyballgame
November 18, 2005 Will Democratic Charges That Bush 'Lied' Lead To His Impeachment? By Mort Kondracke
The 2006 election is shaping up to be a bitterly fought referendum on President Bush - to the point where, if Democrats win, they just might impeach him.
The "I-word" so far is mainly tossed around in the left-wing blogosphere: Barbra Streisand is calling for impeachment on her Web site, for example, as is an unofficial "progressive" site called Democrats.com. But Democratic accusations that Bush lied to get the United States into the Iraq war would seem to lead logically to demands for his removal from office.
The level of venom infusing the Iraq debate, already toxic, has escalated in the past few days as Bush defends himself against charges of lying and Democrats accuse him of "smearing" them and questioning their patriotism.
On Monday, for example, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) charged that Bush "dishonored America's veterans and those serving today" by playing "attack politics" in a Veterans Day speech.
In the speech, Bush quoted Kerry, before he voted for the Iraq war, as saying that Saddam Hussein's "deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a threat, and a great threat, to our national security." Bush added that it is "irresponsible" for Democrats to "rewrite the history" of how the United States went to war.
He said that the Democrats' "baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and an enemy that is questioning our will." Kerry accused Bush of charging that Democrats were "unpatriotic." Kerry also asserted that Bush did not rely on faulty intelligence before the war, "as Democrats did," but waged "a concerted campaign to twist the intelligence to justify a war (he) had already decided to fight."
And, said Kerry, "How are the same Republicans who tried to impeach a president over whether he misled a nation about an affair going to pretend it does not matter if the administration intentionally misled the country into war?"
So, here we have the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate using the I-word in an attack on Bush, albeit indirectly. I'd bet it was a trial balloon, designed to get the idea out on the table without having to accept responsibility for actually recommending it.
The idea has been floated previously by some House liberals. Last month, Congressional Quarterly reported that Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said it "would be an impeachable offense" if evidence proved that Bush or Vice President Cheney authorized aides to mislead lawmakers.
In June, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, held a mock impeachment inquiry based on the "Downing Street memo" that claimed Bush had made up his mind to go to war even as he was saying that Hussein could still come into compliance with United Nations resolutions.
Kerry repeated that allegation on Monday in the course of charging that "the war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history."
Newspapers also have quoted Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) as saying that "this administration has committed more impeachable offenses than any other government in history" and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) as saying that "lying to the Congress about a large public purpose such as Iraq" fit the constitutional test of "high crimes and misdemeanors" better than lying about sex, the offense that led Republicans to impeach former President Bill Clinton.
To be sure, no party leader has mentioned impeachment, but it's clear that Democrats are eagerly searching for "smoking guns" - positive proof that Bush deceived Congress and/or that Cheney helped leak the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame, wife of Bush critic Joseph Wilson.
The "special investigations division" of the minority staff of the House Government Reform Committee has produced a 30-page report alleging that in 125 appearances before the war, Bush, Cheney and other top officials "made 11 misleading statements about the urgency of Iraq's threat, 81 misleading statements about Iraq's nuclear activities, 84 misleading statements about Iraq's chemical and biological capabilities and 61 misleading statements about Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda."
In response to Bush's assertions, backed by voluminous citations, that Democrats, too, looked at U.S. intelligence and declared that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Democrats have shifted ground, declaring either that Bush had privileged information or purposely denied Congress evidence conflicting with his assertions.
The GOP response to that has been to accuse Democrats of partisanship - of accepting Clinton administration WMD assertions as true while now challenging Bush's. Some Republicans also are producing evidence to rebut charges that Bush withheld evidence that would have disproved his WMD claims.
Regardless of whether Democrats ever file articles of impeachment, it's now almost inevitable that Bush will be Topic A in the 2006 election, much as Clinton was in the 1994 and 1998 off-year elections.
In 1994, Republicans capitalized on the collapse of Clinton's health care agenda to win a net 52 House seats and regain control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. But in 1998, even though Clinton's approval rating descended as low as 39 percent after disclosures that he lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, Democrats gained five House seats after Republicans forecast that they would impeach him after the election - as they did.
"We overplayed our hand," said Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), who later became chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. "The Democrats had better watch out that they don't do the same."
So far, Democrats are at the edge of overplaying their hand. They are riding a wave of popular distrust with Bush's war policy, and they're doing everything possible to boost it. This week, as Senate Minority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was interpreting the Senate as having cast a "vote of no confidence" in Bush's war policy, his spokesman, Jim Manley, declared that "the contrast between Democrats and Republicans could not be clearer.
"On the same day that Senate Democrats outlined a path for success in Iraq, Republicans launched another round of misleading smears in order to improve their fortunes," he said. Manley told me he had heard no discussion among Democratic Senators about impeaching Bush. But the level of contempt for Bush among Democrats certainly rivals that among Republicans for Clinton. If they think they have a "smoking gun," I doubt Democrats can restrain themselves.
Mort Kondracke is the Executive Editor of Roll Call.
Send To a Friend | Printer Friendly Mort Kondracke • Author Archive • Email Author • Print This Article • Send Article To a Friend
More Commentary • The Matter With Kansas - Charles Krauthammer • What I Learned This Week - Larry Kudlow • Bush's War Strategy Crumbling - E.J. Dionne
More from Mort Kondracke • U.S. Must Match Tsunami Relief Effort in Pakistan • It's Clear, No One Truly Wants to Reduce Deficits • Some Senators Act Like Adults; Leaders Are Kids
welcome to fr!
Thanks! Long time lurker, first time poster.
In my long life I have never seen so much hate shown towards any president as these Damolcraps express constantly. The MSM also does it bit to contribute to the hate. I don't think Nixon was hated this much.
I seriously doubt this will happen, they know they would be overplaying their hand. At the moment, the best the Democrats can do is subtly nuance that the White House had different intelligence than what they got (While technically true, it was DIFFERENT, the conclusions were all the same). This wont wash in a full investigation. All they need now is the allegations and innuendo to win back some seats in 06 and the presidency in 08. This is all politics, plain and simple. A full blown impeachment hearing would hurt the Democrat cause in the long run, but in the short run, talking about it will help them.
Welcome. Good post.
I would love them to try this. The backlash would be enormous. Hell, I would probably march on Washington.
ibtz?
oh yeah! bring it on. following the Clinton impeachment, this will play real good to the middle of the road types. they'll see the dems in a new light.
please proceed.
GWB is probably the most hated President since Lincoln.
1. The articles for Impeachment would be bogus is based upon "Bush Lied."
2. He would never be convicted in a fair Senate trial.
3. If he were unfairly convicted, too many of us (and I am no Bush fan) personally would take up arms against the RATs in a new Civil War.
4. I wonder how many RATs would have the stomach to fight an American insurgency when they scurry for surrender in the global war on terrorism?
If Impeachment talk gains steam, this could backfire big time on the Democrats. This could really turn out the conservative base in '06 if Dems overplay their hand.
Yep, and if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq right now the dems would be out there saying Bush let Saddam get away with having WMD's and put our country at risk. Then, they would be talking about impeaching him for failing to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I disagree with Kondrake on one point. The dems are waaay over the edge on overplaying their hand. They are out McGoverning McGovern. Moreover, they peaked a bit early. There is too much time between now and the 2006 elections. The Libby case is falling apart (and could bring the credibility of the MSM even further down the toilet), DeLay's indictment is looking to be more and more the direct work of the dems, and Bush is swinging back with both barrels.
You know the difference between Republicans and the dimorats? If W. is guilty of any impeachable offense, (which he isn't), we will have the courage to do what is right and remove him from office. There will be no shameless impeachment rally and march to the White House as occured when slick willie klintoon left his spunk on that fat little girl's dress.
No argument there !
i agree 100%. they are going overboard with this. its gonna totally backfire on them if they even think about impeaching the president. good thing they are peaking now instead of next year. i think they have already peaked and a year is an eternity in politics.
Remember with Dems its not the facts of the case, its the seriousness of the accusation.
They'll scream from the rooftops, "Bush lied", and he "twisted" intelligence. If they win the House back in '06 (which I think they won't), watch out.
You're reading the MSM way too much if you really believe that. Bush today, would beat ANY demonRAT in another vote for the presidency.
I just am amazed that this talk has filtered into regular journalism. Mort is about as fair as any Democrat in D.C., and for him to even postulate this scenario means that there is a real movement among the lefties to accomplish this.
Politics is ugly, and I fear Bush is just not up to a real fight. He has turned the other cheek so many times that he looks almost weak against this onslaught. Time to put up yer dukes, W.
I think Bush should do a Delay and go extremely radical(sort of like European prime ministers who demand confidence elections) and actually go before the congress and actually demand an impeachment hearing...right now this very instant! At the same time he should warn that all the books and papers and secret intelligence will come out for his use in his personal defence. All the secrets that all the congress men and senators will be open...all secret intelligence will be open for the public to take a gander at.
And yes Bush should do a mug shot where he smiles very broadly for the camera...!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.