Over at Daily Kos there has been a recent discussion about what it means to be a member of the reality-based community. DHinMI speculates that “Daily Kos has been infiltrated by Republican dirty tricksters.” Why? Well, he provides several examples. But the inspiration for his diary was a reaction to people calling for impeachment.
So, let’s talk about flying monkeys:
:::more:::
The first thing I want to do is put up the quote that inspired countless liberal blogs to use the tag: ‘proud member of the reality-based community’. It comes from Ron Suskind’s interview with a White House aide:
A lot of people have found the attitude reflected in this quote to be appalling. And it is. But it speaks of power, and power relationships. The Bush administration creates the facts that it wants reported. They ignore, or cover-up, or stifle the facts they want ignored. They are not in the business of truth, but in the business of creating impressions.
All administrations engage in this behavior to some degree. The Bush administration has just taken it to an unprecedented level. Nowhere is this more clear, than in the Downing Street Leaks.
But here’s the thing:
Bloggers are also in the business of creating impressions. In our most useful role, we are digging out stories that are being ignored, or insufficiently covered by the corporate media that most Americans rely on for their news. Or, we are debunking stories that the MSM is paying too much attention to. We are trying to change the reality of what is considered newsworthy.
Conventional wisdom was that Jeff Gannon was not a story. We made it a story, and by doing so we made the media more aware of blogs and assured that they would pay closer attention to us in the future. Without Lottgate, Rathergate and Gannongate paving the way, we never would have gotten traction on the Downing Street Leaks.
What would have happened if we had had blogs to cover the Nugan Hand and BCCI bank scandals, or Iran-Contra? Would Ronald Reagan be a national hero today?
So, we are also in the business of making the reality while others merely watch and report on what we do.
Which leads me to the question of impeachment. Since we like to deal in reality, the first question should not be whether Bush can or will be impeached, but whether he deserves to be impeached. Once we determine what should happen, we can talk about whether there is any chance that it will happen.
And right up front, I’d like to say that any question of impeachment pertains to Dick Cheney just as forcefully as it does to Bush. If one is guilty of high crimes, then so too is the other.
Have Bush and Cheney committed high crimes?
I think the answer is, yes. I believe they have committed a high crime by crafting and authorizing detention and interrogation techniques that are in violation of signed treaties that they are sworn to uphold. To me, this is the slam-dunk case.
They have also lied to and misled Congress. This is critical, because Congress gave them the authority to wage war in Iraq. It may have been illegal according to international law but once Congress agreed to pay for it, it was legal according to American law . (I know there was a misappropriation of funds from Afghanistan to Iraq prior to the resolution).
Someone else can list all the other transgressions of the Bush administration. There have been many that were more injurious to the Republic than a furtive blow-job. Upon closer inspection, some of them might amount to high crimes.
But, to me, the decision to use a program of torture and religious humiliation and renditions to countries like Syria and Uzbekistan, a decision that has led to the deaths of over twenty human beings, is an impeachable offense.
The decision to ‘fix the facts around the policy’ of invading Iraq is an impeachable offense.
But the impeachment process is not a trial like any other trial. It is a political process. The proper grounds for impeachment and conviction are ultimately whatever the House and Senate say they are at any given time. And right now, the House and Senate are more interested in oven-baked chicken and rice pilaf than they are in Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and the Downing Street Leaks.
Back in 1998, they were more interested in the President’s pathetic sex life than they were with Usama bin-Laden’s attacks on the African embassies. They too, make the reality.
So, it is one thing to say that Bush and Cheney should be impeached, and it is quite another to call for the House judiciary committee to initiate impeachment hearings. Currently, there is zero chance of the House impeaching the President, and even less chance of the Senate convicting him.
New leaks containing more specific evidence of wrongdoing could change the current reality, but we should be honest about where we stand.
I have been careful not to call for impeachment. I have asked them to resign. I have said they should be removed from office, but they should do so voluntarily. There is nothing wrong with asking Bush and Cheney to resign. They should resign for mishandling the budget and failing to plan for the occupation of Iraq. They should resign for being unable to account for billions of dollars appropriated for Iraq. And they should resign for the reasons stated above.
Of course, they are not going to have a grinch-like epiphany and resign. But asking them to resign is not as disruptive as trying to put them through an impeachment process that they are almost guaranteed to survive.
I think the Democrats should start saying it outloud: ‘The President and Vice-President have lost their credibility and their ability to lead. They should step down and let Dennis Hastert take over.’
Even though there is no prospect of Bush and Cheney heeding this call, it puts the truth before the American people without tying up Congress. It forces Bush to explain why he won’t resign. It keeps the focus on the fact that Bush has done something egregiously wrong. It makes clear that we need the Democrats to have some subpoena power and oversight capabilities.
And it is our own way of overcoming our current reality by ‘creating other new realities’.
