censure SEN-shur, noun:
- The act of blaming or finding fault with and condemning as wrong; reprehension; blame.
- An official reprimand or expression of disapproval.
--
Dictionary.com
Let's face it, the concept of "censure" for George W. Bush doesn't carry the glamour of "impeachment," nor the same grassroots appeal to liberals and progressives on the farthest 20 percent of the left side of the political bandwidth.
Here's
a plea for impeachment from a rejuvenated Philly blogger, Jim Capozzola of Rittenhouse Review, that merits some discussion:
Worse, these are lies, pure and simple, and simple-minded dishonesty of the lowest form whatsoever displayed by any occupant of the Oval Office since Richard Nixon, and bald-faced lies at that, repeated over and over again, with no hesitation, regret, nor apology, lies that fly in the face of -- that mock with no shame at all -- the Constitution of these, the United States of America.
Enough, already. It's time to start working toward this man's impeachment.
It's as simple, and as sad, as that.
And we agree that if justice -- especially "political justice," an oxymoron if there ever was one -- truly were that "simple," George W. Bush would indeed be impeached, on two overarching issues.
The first would involved fabricating the case for war in Iraq, a case built not only on the "16 words" in the 2003 State of the Union address, but which was just strengthened by James Risen's new book. It shows that the White House and CIA had access to overwhelming evidence that Saddam was not rebuilding his nuclear program -- and yet continued to insist the opposite to the public and lawmakers.
The second count would be an honest-to-goodness "slam dunk" -- abuse of power, straight up. In ordering spying operations that violated a federal law -- the 1978 FISA Act -- and thus both the intentions and oversight of the other two branches of government, Bush attempted to pull off a power grab that makes Watergate seem like it really was "a third-rate burglary."
That would be justice, but like we said, "political justice" is different. How so? Well, it's that extra word, "political."
Remember, impeachment is not a stand-alone act. It's one move -- albeit a big move -- in a giant game of chess that can be played for short-term political gain, the broader national interest, or both. Consider the near-impeachment and resignation of Richard Nixon in 1974, which triggered a flurry of such moves -- beginning with the ascension of Gerald Ford, the short vice presidency of Nelson Rockefeller, and Ford's pardon of Nixon, and resulting later in the Democratic congressional landslide and the election of Jimmy Carter as president two years later.
In 2006, it's not so easy. Impeachment would be a bold move, that -- in the chess metaphor -- leaves its advocates badly exposed to several counter-attacks. Consider these:
1) The Cheney factor. The scandals of 1972-74 might have played out much differently if the unpopular and not-ready-for-prime-time Spiro Agnew had not been forced out on unrelated charges. Ford was a popular ex-member of Congress with good personal ties to the leading Democrats.
Today, would anyone seeking the ouster of Bush really want to see him replaced with Cheney? Certainly, the vice president is equally culpable in our two proposed impeachment counts, and in fact, his dishonesty and misuse of pre-war intelligence on Iraq suggests an even greater level of guilt. In addition, as we argued last year, Cheney's actions in a third case -- the Valerie Plame-"Scooter" Libby scandal -- merit impeachment as well.
Could Congress impeach and remove Bush and Cheney at the same time? Doubtful, and if they tried, it would surely be viewed by the vast political middle as major overkill, regardless of the "justice" involved. What's more, that would put House Speaker Dennis Hastert -- a man who seems to have little interest in the important job he holds now -- in the White House. Does anyone -- Hastert included -- want that?
2) Impeachment fatigue -- it's real. It's also ridiculously unfair. What Bill Clinton did -- having sex with a young woman in the Oval Office and lying about it -- was stupid and morally wrong, and in our opinion deserved the penalty which we're about to propose for Bush: Censure. But to equate that with waging an unjust war that has claimed the lives of thousands of young Americans and Iraqi civilians or ignoring the most basic tenet of the U.S. Constitution -- separation of powers -- is pure folly.
Yet millions of American voters would do exactly that. The GOP suffered at the polls in 1998 for putting the nation through the impeachment ordeal once, but that is nothing compared to the backlash against putting America through it twice in 8 or 9 years. (It's the same reason why impeachment of Ronald Reagan, for very serious abuses in the Iran-Contra affair, was not taken seriously.)
3) Impeachment, were it to get off the ground, would be a remarkably dragged out affair. No president has ever been impeached or forced from office with his own allies running Congress (even the GOPs Andrew Johnson was alienated from the Radical Republicans of the 1860s), and that would not change in this partisan era. So in the real world, hearings would first drag out for the next 9 or 10 months, and only if the Dems recapture Congress in 2007 could there be an impeachment.
And 67 votes for conviction?
That said, we believe Congress needs to take some major steps to help get America as close to righted as possible between now and the next presidential election, three long years away.
That's why we think that the political road less travelled -- censure -- is the path to take. Such a move -- while non-binding and in some ways symbolic -- would put the current White House on a kind of political probation, and also not eliminate the possibility of impeachment should even more serious crimes involving Bush be uncovered.
There is a precedent, although like most precedents, it is far from perfect. In 1834, the Senate voted to censure Andrew Jackson. Last night, we read some history of what happened, and it does seem clear that Jackson's offenses were mainly political and not as serious as the issues raised today. In fact, when the Jacksonian Democrats retook the Senate in 1837, they undid it.
That was then, this is now. A censure endorsed by the leaders of Congress, including some crossover Republicans, would spare everyone the trauma of impeachment and show that "the grown-ups" are re-taking control -- a move that many voters would remember kindly at the ballot box in 2006. The implied threat would be that Bush would need to govern like the "compassionate conservative" he promised to be, not the autocrat (and betrayer of the conservative movement, by the way) that he became -- and that he would need to consult Congress more often.
You want justice? Cheney is "fair game," in our opinion. Not only is the case for impeachment stronger here, but such a move -- which would not threaten the continuity of government nor undo the 2004 "will of the people" -- would thus not pose the political risks of going after a president. Instead, it would be little different from a federal criminal trial. Of course, given his health and other factors, Cheney would probably resign.
That, too, would give the grown-ups more leverage. We have little doubt over who would be nominated to replace Cheney -- Republican John McCain, who would be assured of an overwhelming confirmation vote. He is the one GOPer whose personal integrity makes him acceptable even to Democrats who disagree with him on Iraq or abortion.
McCain would have to agree not to run for president in 2008, of course. If he won't do that, an alternative "national unity" choice could be Lowell Weicker, the Connecticut liberal-Republican-turned-independent and one of "the good guys" of Watergate.
And no pardons.
Because justice will come for Bush and Cheney one day, if not now, later...and if not in this world then in the next.
(Cross-posted at Attytood.}