Bush Admits to Nonexistent “High Crimes”; Will be Impeached in 2007
UPDATE: After reading around the web some, such as at Michelle Malkin, it seems the President tried to split hairs. If you take a nuanced approach, Bush tried to give the issue back to Congress to settle. However, I just don’t see how the public will see anything but a reversal, certainly with an knee-jerk reactionary press that is against everything Bush. I was afraid that perhaps I’m exaggerating, but I just don’t think the public will see this as anything but an admission that Bush was wrong. For now, I stand by my original prediction, that the GOP will lose the House and Bush will be successfully impeached, in part, based on this action.
Bush has admitted to the requisite “high crimes and misdemeanors” to allow for impeachment. It doesn’t matter that these supposed crimes aren’t truly crimes; he has effectively admitted to them being illegal and makes it impossible to claim otherwise. He has shown fundamental weakness leading up to the election that makes Congressional Republicans that much more vulnerable. Ultimately, the Democrats will gain control of the House, will successfully impeach the President, and he will likely be thrown out of office by a weak Senate Republican majority.
It is no secret that many Democrats (and certainly left-wing activists) want to impeach Bush. This drive started roughly on the day of inauguration in 2001. They’ve invented and refined charges throughout the past few years. Some of these have been completely debunked by the facts, others have hung around. For instance, the scandal of the Valerie Plame incident is that the prosecutor, after knowing who the leaker was the first day of the investigation, allowed the witch hunt to continue. The investigation also proved that not only did Bush not lie about Niger, but the claims were actually true.
However, the charge the Bush has violated the Geneva Conventions and tortured prisoners is one that cannot now be argued against by the President. By admitting that the terrorists have rights on the Geneva Conventions, he makes it impossible to turn around and say the decision not to grant them rights to begin with was legal. This is despite the fact that the Geneva Conventions are crystal clear that illegal combatants are entitled to no protections.
The Geneva Conventions protect only uniformed military who carry weapons openly. It does not protect spies, mercenaries, or terrorists. The fact that the language of the Geneva Conventions is clear on this point has not deterred the left from this rallying cry of human rights violations.
Discussions on what is or is not required in international law tend to border on the absurd. Usually the crowd that vigorously supports international law as binding is the same crowd that believes in the “living and breathing Constitution”. In short, they believe that what is written and agreed upon doesn’t matter; they believe that whatever is “progressive” is what the Constitution requires. The same is true of international law. Many scholars don’t argue what is actually required in the treaties, they argue what they believe the law should be, and thus, it becomes much more invidious to defend against. Think of it as trying to hit a moving target.
Bush, by admitting that Al Qaeda has Geneva Convention rights, has admitted that not giving those rights to Al Qaeda was illegal. He has conceded to the idea that international law can be “written” and “rewritten” at the whim of the “international community” regardless of the words that are on the page. He has justified the very same judicial activism he rails against domestically. He has emasculated the Republican opposition to judicial legislation and has allowed the law to be whatever Howard Dean, MoveOn, and George Soros says it is. The law will always be against whatever conservatives want to do as a result. The rule of law no longer matters to the GOP.
The left has argued that violating international law is a high crime and misdemeanor, a charge justified in the Constitution that treaties and the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.
Bush and the Republicans have run on a strong national security platform. The idea of terrorists sitting in plush cells and being given access to all the rights entitled to American criminals will do nothing but turn off his base. The idea that we have to treat terrorists, who intentionally kill civilians, with the utmost respect is a slap in the face to the conservative base.
Another component of the population that will be put off by this decision is the military. By Bush deciding that the Geneva Convention affords rights to terrorists, he justifies terrorism as an acceptable form of warfare. It is telling that there are no real cries to have Al Qaeda terrorists tried for human rights violations or war crimes. The military faces heavy restrictions that regulate how they fight the enemy. Those restrictions are paid for with the lives of soldiers.
The military has just been defecated on by the Bush administration by being equated as the moral equivalent to terrorists. There may be a few bad soldiers who are being tried for violating military regulations. There are no Al Qaeda trials for killing civilians. By and large, US soldiers are fighting honorably in tough conditions. Al Qaeda fights like cowards. The Bush Administration has effectively told the military they are no better than Al Qaeda.
Alienating these two groups and showing weakness on the one issue that has been the Bush Administration’s strength will likely undermine the GOP platform going into November. There are already over 30 seats in contention in the House and if the elections were held today, Democrats would likely gain at least 15 (and gain control of the House). Showing further weakness and undermining their main platform stance will likely make for an even more difficult case to sell to voters. Combine that with an alienation of two key voting blocs makes for a losing season for the Republicans.
Nancy Pelosi and others have signaled discreetly that they would certainly have hearings that could lead to impeachment. With Bush admitting to violating the Geneva Conventions, hearings almost become superfluous. There is no way Bush can state now that the Geneva Conventions do apply and then state during impeachment that they don’t. This decision amounts to a confession.
Bush will be impeached come January, but it won’t only be over the Geneva Conventions issue. Every set of Articles of Impeachment against Bush go far beyond international law and the war. They criminalize conservatism. The impeachment will attack not only the war, but opposition to embryo-destroying stem cell research, the Patriot Act, tax cuts, the NSA scandals, judicial appointments, and limited federal government. It will likely enshrine a “progressive” standard that all future presidents must follow. See this example of impeachment articles that has one article that says Bush’s response to Katrina was a crime (yet is suspiciously silent about Gov. Blanco’s and Mayor Nagin’s roles). The consistent feature of all articles of impeachment against Bush is that they include thought crimes.
The idea that impeachment won’t be used for partisan purposes is novel and interesting, yet unconvincing. The Clinton impeachment, if anything, was not about perjury (which it should have been), it was about partisan politics. It is not likely that this impeachment will be any different. With the left having a history of trying to outlaw opposing or traditional points of view, it would be nonsensical to believe they won’t try to do it in an impeachment.
Make no mistake, the Congressional GOP will lose at least the House in November and now possibly the Senate. Bush will be impeached in the House and those impeachment articles will include the thought crimes of not being a progressive. The Senate, which has always been weak when it came to sticking up for Republicans, will likely throw Bush out of office.
The Republican Revolution has been mortally wounded today. Now we get to watch its slow and painful euthanizing.
Related Posts:
