Table of Contents | ON THE ROAD AGAIN: "Where 'Letting George Do It' Has Gotten Us" Two years ago I wrote about the promised agenda of the just elected Bush administration that included the notion of individual accounts for the social security system. I wrote that article out of anger and determination. My anger was stoked by the sheer arrogance of a president who was on a crusade to change that which was and is, in effect, a social contract with the citizens of this country. I concluded that opinion piece by expressing my determination in these words, "Don't let George undo it." Well, others joined me and, together, we blocked his drive to undercut this part of the social support system and "George didn't undo it." (See my article called "The Loyal Opposition"). It is found under the segment entitled On the Road Again. Two years later the situation is worse than I ever imagined could be possible. So this country chose to send the administration of George W. Bush a message with the election of November 2006. The wrong-headed doings of the Bush administration would not be tolerated any longer. We gave Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party the reins of government. What happened? Just days before the final outcome of the election in November Nancy Pelosi, the soon-to-be elected Speaker of the House, went on CBS's 60 Minutes and said, "Impeachment is off the table....It is a waste of time." Then she launched a defense of her viewpoint with credible comments even if they were irrelevant. I was astounded. The question that haunts me is the one raised by Elizabeth Holtzman in her book The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens and summarized in an article she wrote for The Washington Spectator. Elizabeth Holtzman can't be dismissed as a shrill and vindictive voice. She served four terms in Congress and played a key role in the impeachment proceedings against Nixon. She argues, "Whether or not it would be a political liability for the Democrats, impeaching Bush is their constitutional duty." Moreover, she notes, "Impeachment is an essential tool for preserving democracy. The framers of the Constitution, determined to provide protections against grave abuses of power by a president, created the impeachment process as a special procedure for citizens. Through their representatives, citizens would be able to remove a president run amok." Her summation of the president's impeachable offenses is found in these words. "President George W. Bush has engaged in acts that violate his obligations as president on a range of isssues. These impeachable offenses include: deceiving Congress and the people in taking the country to war in Iraq; directing an illegal domestic wiretapping program and other surveillance of Americans; permitting and condoning the use of torture or cruel treatment of detainees; showing reckless indifference to human life in the face of Hurricane Katrina, in inadequately equipping U.S. soldiers and in insufficiently planning for the occupation of Iraq; covering up his war deceptions with the leak of misleading classified information, an act that became entangled with the outing of a CIA agent, a possible crime." Her article in The Washington Spectator gives an interpretation of each of the five impeachable offenses and concludes, "President Bush has committed a great many grave and dangerous offenses, and subverted the Constitution. The evidence is clear and strong. Congress cannot shirk its responsibility to protect the nation from tyranny. This is what the founders of this country intended when they added presidential impeachment to the Constitution." Dr. Harry E. Moore of Nashville, Tennessee, reminds me, "As you know a coterie of medical doctors at Johns Hopkins University examined the reports of fatalities in Iraq and concluded that about 665,000 fatalities in Iraq, not combatant Iraqis, have died as a result of U.S. bombings. This is," he asserts, "genocidal and, for it, George W. Bush should be tried for crimes against humanity....If we do not impeach him, we should have another Constitutional convention and consider starting over." How do I conclude?" The present administration is utterly frightening to me. Until there is some attention given to the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commissison other than the claim that they will be "considered," the future of our country will continue to deteriorate in its moral standing before the world. Ultimately, the rebellion of citizens is the only safeguard to deliver us from "where George has gotten us because we let him do it." What our elected officials have refused to debate, namely, impeachment, merits consideration, now! With his administration's neo-conservative leaders poised to take action against Iran, I don't think we have much choice other than impeachment!!! Lo and behold, there are others who are concerned with the direction of this present administration and are seeking ways to a different future. For example, I came across a reference in The Nation (May 7, 2007) to a discussion by John Nichols. He is author of The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. He observes that "it was the threat of impeachment that got Richard Nixon to bend to pressure from Congress to wind down the Vietnam War." He goes on to quote Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame, "If you want to move Bush on Iraq, get serious about impeachment." Now, that's a surge I can support. |