What began as something of a joke on far left websites like Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground has hit the big time as one of the left’s leading lights has jumped on the impeachment bandwagon and started it rolling toward an uncertain future.
Lewis Lapham, the iconoclastic intellectual whose lucid, well written essays and columns have been a source of inspiration and thought provoking debate to two generations of American liberals has written an essay in Harpers Magazine calling for the impeachment of President Bush.
It doesn’t matter that Lapham has chosen to base his decision on the “investigation” of Representative John Conyers, a 121 page screed compiled by the Congressman’s staff that charges George Bush with, as Lapham puts it, “crimes against the American people” for perpetrating the war in Iraq. Lapham’s stature alone assures that more serious, sober minded liberals will begin to examine impeachment as a serious issue and will now most assuredly support it if the Democrats were to win the House in November.
The case that Lapham makes is weak, speculative, and full of holes wide enough that George Bush could drive a 10 ton semi through. After all, much of the “evidence” was heard during Conyer’s quixotic and curious hearings on the war and the “untold story” of 9/11. Lapham summarizes the case:
On December 18 of last year, Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D., Mich.) introduced into the House of Representatives a resolution inviting it to form “a select committee to investigate the Administration’s intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.†Although buttressed two days previously by the news of the National Security Agency’s illegal surveillance of the American citizenry, the request attracted little or no attention in the press—nothing on television or in the major papers, some scattered applause from the left-wing blogs, heavy sarcasm on the websites flying the flags of the militant right.
Readers of this site could find rebuttals in the archives to each and every one of those charges (with the possible exception of torture although it may be a stretch to say that the Administration encouraged it to any great degree or countenanced it at all). As I said, it doesn’t matter what evidence Lapham is basing his decision to support impeachment; what matters is that he is influential and that he’s serious.
Dan Riehl is disgusted:
Scratch Harper’s From The List – [t]he list of magazines I’ll ever take seriously, again. What rubbish. As if the majority of America would be interested in anything that idiot Conyers has to say…
Mr. Riehl has a point. In order for there to be impeachment, first one must have a case. Conyers “report” would not be taken seriously anywhere – except a Democratic House. And there’s the rub. If the Democrats take the House in November, they can pretty much do whatever they please up to and including opening impeachment hearings in the Judiciary Committee. The media circus that would follow would guarantee an end to the President’s influence and would destroy the remainder of his second term.
It would also almost insure a cycle of impeachment inquiries – formal and informal – on every President of either party for the foreseeable future. Coupled with the Republicans sometimes unhinged pursuit of Bill Clinton, if the Democrats figure they can base impeachment on demonstrably false allegations or, as in the case of the War in Iraq, carrying out United States policy of regime change then it’s open season on the presidency. It will hamstring the office as future Presidents may feel constrained to act in the national interest for fear of the Judiciary Committee’s gavel.
While that might appeal to a certain libertarian segment of the population, it first of all was never the intent of the founders to have impeachment act as a hangman’s noose dangling in front of the executive. A brake, yes. But when you have the other party gunning for you the minute you sit down in the Oval Office, I daresay such an atmosphere would have an excellent chance of getting a lot of Americans killed given the kind of war we are fighting. More importantly, the power of the legislative branch would be increased enormously if it was a given that a sitting President from an opposing party would need to walk on egg shells lest his political enemies seize the first suspect decision he makes and turn it into an impeachable offense.
Has Lapham gone off a cliff by calling for impeachment? Not hardly. For the left in America these days, there is no cliff to jump off of. As Lapham’s essay proves, they are already in free fall with the bottom of the gorge nowhere in sight.
4:34 pm
You say: “Lewis Lapham, the iconoclastic intellectual whose lucid, well written essays and columns have been a source of inspiration and thought provoking debate to two generations of American liberals”...
Since when has ANY liberal come up with a thought let alone a lucid & intellectual thought?
4:47 pm
Once policy differences become grounds for impeachment I don’t see much way that any future president (and there are probably 90 politicians who see themselves as such in the U. S. Senate) will serve until the end of his or her term.
Mistakes—yes. Incompetence—maybe. High crimes and misdemeanors? Poppycock. Without a helluva lot more evidence than anybody seems to have this is just a difference of opinion and the forum for working those out is the voting booth not the floor of the Senate in impeachment proceedings.
7:04 pm
:Laughing so hard I can barely type: YOU SAY:....sober minded liberals…. Now I ask you 2 questions
1. What in the HELL is a “sober minded Liberal”?
2. If there really WAS-and WE ALL know that there is- no such thing, They would be Republicians…Would they not?
7:16 pm
Has America Become An Seething Hotbed Of Anti-American Hatred?
Poll: Bush Ratings At All-Time Low (34%)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml
9:40 pm
“More importantly, the power of the legislative branch would be increased enormously if it was a given…”
We’ll end up with a long string of “President Jellyfishs,” unfortunately, they’ll be happy with that result, right up until the lights go out, then it’ll be too late.
9:45 pm
This is about as ridiculous at it gets. While I agree that Lapham may be a good essayist, his suggestion of impeaching President Bush on the basis of John Conyers’ crazy musings will not go anywhere and raises questions about his integrity. He may be an intellectual, as you say, but that’s not saying much when so many of them, particularly those on the left, harbor such outrageous ideas. The prospect of the Democrats taking the House in 2006, which is doubtful, would not necessarily stir them to do what Laphan is contemplating. Americans would overwhelmingly reject something as absurd as this, unless Democrats want to keep shooting themselves in the foot. Lapham, in the sunset of his years, ought not to go out a bitter man and should stick to writing those long, rambling essays. Embracing the dirty politics of the Democrats would make him look like an unscrupulous scumbag.
10:00 pm
I’m embarassed to say that I can attest to your praise of Lapham’s writing ability, Rick. I confess to having actually (urp) subscribed to Harper’s Ragazine for the better part of my graduate student life. Youth, heh.
I survived, though, a flamin’ conservative no less.
10:49 pm
When is Conyers going to account for the turkeys his staff stole last year?
“If the Democrats take the House in November, they can pretty much do whatever they please up to and including opening impeachment hearings in the Judiciary Committee.”
– Let them keep thinking that this is posible. The shock the day after will all the more amusing. (Coupled with accusations that the polls said….)
6:17 am
The Impeachment Bandwagon Starts To Roll
... Elections have consequences, people. If the GOP still controls the House after November the moonbats can howl all they want to but they still won’t be any less powerless than they are right now. Don’t forget to vote.
10:16 am
Islam Means Peace (Doesn’t it?)
72 White Grapes for all! “Moderate” Muslim leader speaks: Islam means war. Senior al Qaeda asshole captured in Iraq. Evan Kohlmann is skeptical. Meanwhile, escaped al Qaeda bad guy vows attacks on U.S. soil. Former Taliban official in U.S., studying…
12:05 pm
well chickens usually do come home to roost.Today’s moon-bat may be tommorrow’s realist. Divisive politics may be successfull in the short term but it really isn’t good for the country long term. The fickle American voter has turned against the Iraq mission. Can we hope to achieve success when the population does not support the endeavor ?
4:44 pm
They should have called off the revolution, only about 1/3 of the population wanted any part of it, only about 5% actually did something.
When you get polls like the cbs one, I got to ask … what does cbs do again?
11:34 pm
Anything originating from the racist Conyers has got to be nothing other than laughing matter. Unfortunately, the Jews as well as others know differently, and it’s not laughing matter at all—it’s Naziism all over again! Conyers is heavily funded by the Islamo-Fascist Congress for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and that says it all! John Conyers has a long and well-known atagonism towards Jews, as do Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The problem is that the corrupt American mainstream media can’t figure that out—only the blogs have the guts to bring out the facts!
4:55 am
Wow, First I think everyone of has forgotten that impeachment is a process to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Bush et al would be tried and maybe found innocent maybe found guilty. No President has yet been put out of office thru impeachment, thought Nixon probably would have been. Several of your comments about liberals indicate a lucid thought is the furthest thing from your mind, and in fact your lack there of. You may disagree w/ liberal thoughts, that doesn’t mean they are ill thought and not lucid. Finally, unfortuntately there are grounds for impeachment. Article VI says treaties are the highest law of the land. Bush disobyed against this treaty when he invaded, period. You may feel he did the right thing, it was still illegal and therefore grounds for impeachment (the process, not necessarily being actually kicked out of office). I could go on there are many more of his actions that need to be investigate. However, my point is made.