QandO

June 25, 2004

The Courage of Their Convictions
Posted by Dale Franks

Al Gore's speech yesterday makes several charges against George W Bush. Excuse the rather lengthy excerpting of the charges below, but it's important to review them before making my point.

He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention. Just as he would not honor the United Nations, international treaties, the opinions of our allies, the role of Congress and the courts, or what Jefferson described as "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind." He did not honor the advice, experience and judgment of our military leaders in designing his invasion of Iraq...

From its earliest days in power, this administration sought to radically destroy the foreign policy consensus that had guided America since the end of World War II. The long successful strategy of containment was abandoned in favor of the new strategy of "preemption."

The abuse of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib flowed directly from the abuse of the truth that characterized the Administration's march to war and the abuse of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people in the aftermath of September 11th...

We are less safe because of his policies. He has created more anger and righteous indignation against us as Americans than any leader of our country in the 228 years of our existence as a nation because of his attitude of contempt for any person, institution or nation who disagrees with him.

He has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us...And by pursuing policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all of it done in our name...

The war plan was incompetent in its rejection of the advice from military professionals and the analysis of the intelligence was incompetent in its conclusion that our soldiers would be welcomed with garlands of flowers and cheering crowds...

There was also in Rumsfeld's planning a failure to provide security for nuclear materials, and to prevent widespread lawlessness and looting...

The President convinced a majority of the country that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on September 11th. But in truth he had nothing whatsoever to do with it. The President convinced the country with a mixture of forged documents and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with al-Qaida, and that he was "indistinguishable" from Osama bin Laden...

They have launched an unprecedented assault on civil liberties, on the right of the courts to review their actions, on the right of the Congress to have information to how they are spending the public's money and the right of the news media to have information about the policies they are pursuing...

Moreover, the administration has also set up the men and women of our own armed forces for payback the next time they are held as prisoners. And for that, this administration should pay a very high price. One of the most tragic consequences of these official crimes is that it will be very hard for any of us as Americans at least for a very long time to effectively stand up for human rights elsewhere and criticize other governments, when our policies have resulted in our soldiers behaving so monstrously...

OK, so there's the Gore position, and one that pretty well encapsulates the Democratic Party's list of charges against the President. Of course, many Democrats think far worse, as the list above doesn't include the Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 charges that so many Democratic politicians thought were so important to talk about after the Washington DC premier two days ago.

I'm not particularly interested in refuting these charges for now. It's just important to know what the charges are, not to try and determine the truth of them.

So, how many articles of impeachment do you think that would come out to? I count at least 6:

1) The president intentionally deceived both the American people and their elected representatives when taking the nation to war.

2) He lied to Congress and the American people about Iraq's WMD programs.

3) He has abused executive power by a de facto elimination of civil rights for some Americans, and an extra-Constitutional exercise of his police powers.

4) He has implemented a policy that explicitly calls for the torture of prisoners of war, in violation of the United States' treaty commitments vis a vis the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Armed Conflict.

5) He has pursued an illegal and immoral military policy that has resulted in the death of thousands of innocent civilians.

6) His incompetent war leadership has caused incalculable damage to our military, and resulted in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of soldiers.

So, if the president has actually done all those things, why don't the Democrats begin putting forth articles of Impeachment in the house, in order to make the president face up to the high crimes and misdemeanors these charges represent? After all, these are not inconsequential charges. They are, if true, something completely different that partisan disagreement.

The Democrats are alleging that the President is subverting the Constitution, engaging in massive, extra-Constitutional violations of civil rights, waging a war of aggression, and generally destroying the world-wide credibility of the United States of America, and, by so doing, actively harming the safety and security of the nation and its citizens.

So, if they really believe these things to be true, why isn't Nancy Pelosi introducing Articles of Impeachment on the House floor every business day? And, since she is not doing so, nor does she apparently have any plans ever to do so, what does that say about the factual basis for these charges?

The problem with starting impeachment proceedings is that would require hearings. Those hearings, being aired every day, would make apparent the factual basis--or lack thereof--for these charges readily apparent.

The Democrats are engaged in nothing more than a cynically vicious and partisan strategy, whereby they get to accuse the president of impeachable offenses of the grossest sort, but conveniently forego having to prove any of it factually by ensuring it stays in the political, rather than judicial arena.

TrackBack