On the "to do" list for Democrats: Impeach Bush
By Vincent Fiore
web posted June 13, 2005
Having lost badly in this new century's elections, Democrats are now sounding the alarm for impeachment proceedings against President Bush. If the word "impeachment" were not so serious in its intent, one is tempted to laugh out loud, and I will assume that many did.
But this is today's Democratic Party, where its DNC chairman Howard Dean says that Republicans "never made an honest living in their lives," the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), calls a sitting president a "loser," and the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), equated America as a modern-day war machine when she said "America must be a light to the world, not just a missile."
So should anyone truly be surprised to hear the "I" word finally make the rounds? The mainstream media have so far held off on any serious coverage, but that may change quickly if the blogosphere has anything to say about it.
The usual muckrakers of the left are in high gear. Websites like the Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and liberal iconoclast Michael Moore's website are all salivating over the prospect of doing the one thing that seemingly propels their existence: finally defeating Bush.
To date, the most serious thrust regarding the impeachment of Bush have come from last year's presidential losers, Democratic Senator John Kerry and Reform/Green party activist Ralph Nader, who returned from the college talk circuit long enough to post an op-ed in the Boston Globe titled: "The 'I' Word."
In the article, Nader says that "Minutes from a summer 2002 meeting involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveal that the Bush administration was 'fixing' the intelligence to justify invading Iraq. U.S. intelligence used to justify the war demonstrates repeatedly the truth of the meeting minutes -- evidence was thin and needed fixing."
These allegations, or as Nader would have you read as facts, are the foundation of an impeachment procedure against Bush, falling into the category of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Both Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have denied these charges.
Kerry, who is quoted extensively by the anti-American publication, Al Jazeera, says "When I go back [to Washington] on Monday, I am going to raise the issue. I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home. And it's amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet; I can tell you that."
So, to take stock: Democrats suddenly embrace the Internet as a "news source," have a notoriously anti-American organ like Al Jazeera running Kerry's impeachment mutterings all over the Middle East, and welcome the 2000 election "spoiler" and pariah, Ralph Nader, back into the family? Read this as throwing it all up against the wall to see what sticks.
Remarkably, the sheer coincidence of disgruntled "Deep Throat" informant, Mark Felt, suddenly announcing to the world that he was the leak in the Nixon White House, leads one to believe that Democrats may be feeling a bit nostalgic about what once was.
For Democrats and the mainstream media, the Watergate era which culminated with the disgrace and removal of Republican President Richard Nixon, was truly the golden era. It was a time of near-political dominance for the Democratic Party, and a media culture that was dedicatedly progressive in its heartfelt ideology, and driven in its desire to create a utopian society through liberal governance.
But that is what today's liberal Democratic Party is still about. Aside from being the minority party in Washington, the ideology hasn't changed. Nor have the relics of the Nixonian-era media changed. The liberal media is still here, only now it is no longer the only -- or last -- word regarding politics and world events.
Scandal, for all its negative connotations and mud-wallowing, is still a vital and useful application in politics. Republicans dived into the mud with Bill Clinton, and wound up proving a few scandals along the way. The trick here is that it has to have some truth attached to it.
Democrats have continually tried to drag Bush into the mud these past four years, but found him surprisingly resilient; a Teflon-coated Texan who survived everything from being accused of ignoring warnings of 9/11 (that now-famous August 6, 2001 presidential daily brief, or PDB) to Dan Rather's infamous attempt at tilting a presidential election through the use of fake National Guard documents -- or as we pajama-clad bloggers call it, "Memogate."
If the media have their way, they will make a case for impeachment by tying the entire Iraq war, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay events together to form the next "something-Gate." Predictably, Democrats will swallow the bait, along with the hook that will once again trap them into looking like the party of desperation and decline.
The Democratic Party, by its serial promotion of supposed-presidential perfidiousness over any real attempts at legislation, looks more like a party devoid of any ideas, but awash with scandal-clad plots.
Somewhere, Richard Nixon must be smiling; wishing the Democrats of his day were so patently predictable, and so prone to public embarrassment.
Impeachment? No, no. Just another grand "plan" gone awry from our friends on the left. This, too, shall fall short. 
Vincent Fiore is a freelance political writer who lives in New York City. He receives e-mail at anwar004@aol.com.
 Printer friendly version |
|