Does Clinton’s Impeachment Inoculate Bush From the Same Fate?
It’s hard to believe that over 8 years have passed since a GOP-controlled kangaroo court convened, and presented articles of impeachment against President William Jefferson Clinton. Looking back on the Jones-Whitewater-Lewinsky-Tripp-Starr smudge on history, it’s also hard to believe that the neocon contingent in congress was so hell bent on removing a sitting President [...]
It’s hard to believe that over 8 years have passed since a GOP-controlled kangaroo court convened, and presented articles of impeachment against President William Jefferson Clinton. Looking back on the Jones-Whitewater-Lewinsky-Tripp-Starr smudge on history, it’s also hard to believe that the neocon contingent in congress was so hell bent on removing a sitting President over what was essentially a personal matter.
Without splitting the “perjury” hair, and for the purposes of this post, let’s stipulate that Clinton’s impeachment was clearly politically motivated (you’d have to be a dunderhead to believe otherwise anyway). But why? Certainly, the GOP leadership waged a war with the Clinton White House during his entire administration. And it wasn’t even so much ideological - hell, in any other era of the country, Bill Clinton could have just as easily been a moderate Republican. He removed a lot of social welfare safety nets. Utility deregulation was allowed to occur during his administration. Enron thrived. Grandma Millie was getting hosed a long time before George W. Bush was installed as President in late 2000 by the Supreme Court. Clinton didn’t serve in the military, yet he wasn’t averse to projecting U.S. hegemony in the world via military engagement. In other words, Bill Clinton was a conservative’s type of “liberal”.
So what happened? Could it be that the entire 8 years that Clinton was in office was simply a setup for the Bush regime, and that the impeachment of Bill Clinton was little more than a sting operation by the neocons in the GOP to inoculate a future GOP president from the same fate? With the current Democratic Party controlled congress apparently afraid to even broach the topic of impeachment (and prosecution) of the entire Bush regime for offenses which are much more clear than those of Clinton, it’s at least a plausible explanation for the fervor of Newt & Co.’s pursuit of Bill Clinton from 1998 through his impeachment hearings in 1999.
Throughout the process of impeaching Clinton, it was clear that a vast majority of the public did not support the partisan proceedings, even as some scared Dem rabbits (Joe Lieberman?) publicly railed against Big Dog’s personal indiscretions. While Clinton’s “crime” was clearly an impeachable offense in the most technical of senses, it did not rise to the intent of high crimes and misdemeanors in office.
There are few who would argue that the lies and deception and crimes of the Bush regime and many of their GOP enablers most certainly do rise to the level of the intent of the constitutional framers in providing impeachment as an option of last resort for congress.
It is no accident that the GOP-controlled congress allowed the independent counsel statute to expire in 1999. Democrats felt burned by it, so put up little resistance. The GOP leadership might have had more nefarious reason, though - because certainly they had the votes and the horsepower to renew the legislation if they had so desired. They didn’t. Let’s also not forget that just prior to the presidential election in 2000, the Project for a New American Century issued its first manifesto, which was signed by all of the early members of the Bush regime - the manifesto that set in motion an irreversible path that we’re still traveling.
So, now, in 2007 a case can clearly be made that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney could and should be removed from office via the impeachment option, and the crimes committed by lesser names in the regime could and should be prosecuted. But there is no independent counsel statute to invoke. And why won’t congress push forward? On the face of it, the answer seems pretty simple.
The Democratic Party controlled congress does not want to be viewed as vindictive, and seeking retribution for Clinton’s kangaroo court in 1999. This is exactly the setup that the GOP leadership wanted in place when they pursued Clinton’s impeachment on the flimsiest of counts. While they were in power, the GOP absolutely wanted the proceedings to be perceived as partisan, because, for the most part, Americans seem to detest the concept of partisanship when it comes to the common weal.
The GOP embraced the partisanship. The Democrats now seem to be horrified by the potential for their being viewed as “partisan” if the leadership were to pursue impeachment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. And I’m not sure why.
I am sure, however, that it bothers me. With the conviction of Scooter Libby yesterday, there is no question that high ranking members of the Bush regime were involved in, at best, leaking the name of a covert intelligence agent and, at worst, possibly committing acts of treason as political retribution. This is the cudgel that the leadership of congress must now use to pry open the bursting Pandora’s Box of corruption, lies, deceit, and crimes that is being held so tightly under claims of “executive privilege” by Alberto Gonzalez and a host of White House lawyers. Libby’s conviction is the lever. And perhaps AttorneyGate is the counterweight needed to actually move the lever and pry back the top of the lid on the box.
In writing this article, I was struck by how Attorney General Janet Reno literally bent over backwards to support Ken Starr’s witchhunt of Bill Clinton. That’s why I believe that AttorneyGate is the place to really start the investigations - because unlike Reno, Alberto Gonzales has provided nothing but roadblocks to justice in his role as Attorney General of the United States. That’s where this whole thing has to start - with Gonzales.
It’s time for the charades to end. Before the executive pardons start flying from the Bush regime, there has to be some accountability. Accountability for the current regime starts with an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee on whether or not impeachable crimes have been committed.
The GOP fully intended that the 1999 proceedings on Bill Clinton would generate a foul taste for future such efforts. And it did. But it’s time to rinse and spit, and move forward with all haste. As I noted yesterday, in one remarkable day, we hit the trifecta of evidence.
There is no better time; there is no more appropriate moment in history; there is no more compelling reason to remove a regime that is demonstrably dangerous to the Constitution of the United States.
I think you maybe overstating the case a little too much
Repubs wanted to take down Clinton b/c his brand of Repub Lite politics was at the time widely popular. Here you had a DEM who was more centrist than any other DEM they had ever seen. If his brand of governing from the center took hold any further whats to say all fiscal conservative and libertarian voters wouldnt jump ship and join Clinton and any other DLC type Democrat. Republicans realized they couldnt win every election solely with the single issue (abortion) voters.
The impeachment hearings provided the perfect opportunity for the RW to eat into that popularity by atttacking him not from his strength (centrist business ideals) but from his weakness the MORAL uncertainities of his character. By denigrating his moral character the Repubs set the stage for foisting up a candidate that had all the Clinton pro-corporate acumen(fiscal conservatives/libertarian) but was morally superior, and ultimately electable with religious/evangelical voters. Hence bible thumping GWB the perfect candidate.
I still dont think the previous impeachment hearings should prevent Dems from at least looking into it. I mean in the last week TWO republican Congressmen have come out in favor of talking about Bush impeachment Dana Rorhbacher - CA (re: border agents in jail) and Chuck Hagel (re: Bush iraq).
From Reuters:
“More than 30 Vermont towns passed resolutions on Tuesday seeking to impeach President Bush, while at least 16 towns in the tiny New England state called on Washington to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.”
More at Vermont towns seek to impeach Bush.
Janet Reno also refused to send down more than two investigators to Florida BEFORE the 2000 election, despite being begged to do so by NAACP due to widespread complaints of (illegal) vote suppression efforts.
But there were many people who stood aside to let Bill Clinton get screwed. Liberal Democrats were angry at him over NAFTA. Conservative Democrats were angry at him over the 1994 election (which was also stolen using illegal contributions which showed up in the ethics complaint against Newt Gingrich). As Jim Carville showed, if 10,000 votes had been distributed differently, the Dems would have retained control of the House. As for Ken Starr, Janet Reno was right on the law and on the facts, just at the wrong time and up against the wrong sumsab%$ches.
And Bill Clinton himself let it happen. He should have taken a lesson from Constantine, who refused to be baptized until he was on his deathbed, because he knew that if he were faithful as a Christian, he could not do some of the hard things a king must do.
But finally, regular people let it happen. I spent an inordinate amount of time from autumn 1994 onward phoning, FAXing, writing, volunteering, and contributing to prevent the creeping coup. I was amazed at how few Democrats took it seriously.
It is a truism that if government is not *by* the people, very soon it will cease to be *for* the people. Each of us needs to be, metaphorically, a citizen soldier, one hand on the plow, the other on the FAX machine, the telephone, the checkbook.
This is a subject which has interested me for some time.
I believe you are overstating the case when you suggest that the Clinton impeachment (the single greatest misuse of congressional power in U.S. history, let us remember) was a conscious attempt to discredit impeachment. Rather, I believe, it was part of a continuing Republican effort to make Democrats look corrupt.
This is done because the Republicans know that, at its core, their party is essentially a corrupt organization serving only the interests of a very small minority of the population, at the expense of all others. This fact has become so obvious that the Republicans’ only hope of evading this issue is to convince people that the Democrats are just as corrupt. Thus the endless series of pseudoscandals of which the Democrats stand accused.
Just yesterday, the New York Times, on its front page, essentially accused Barack Obama of some sort of incomprehensible misdeed analogous to the Whitewater accusations. This sort of thing is going to go on forever, or until Democrats hold Republicans responsible for their crimes, whichever comes first. I’m not placing bets either way.
“Does Clinton’s Impeachment Inoculate Bush From the Same Fate?”
Man, it’s great to know I’m not alone in my fetid cynicism!
Excellent reasoning in these replies aside, I have long believed that the purpose of Clinton’s dragged-out, overdone impeachment flogging WAS exactly to make us run screaming in revulsion and horror at the thought of another impeachment debacle. It WAS an inoculating device that worked out suspiciously well for bu$h. Lucky him.
Dems have to get over this. As long as the impeachment clause remains in the Constitution its use can’t be off the table, especially now when it’s really, really needed.
I have been saying this for 3 years now. The failed impeachment of WJC has watered down the impact of impeachment and made it intolerable for the public and our leaders. Job well done! Another tool of our democracy taken away by the republicans.
Nice theory but a little too Machiavellian for me.
The Right wanted Clinton from the git go. What I remember is the first speech Clinton made to Congress. He said he was going to go for universal health care and the Republicans laughed in his face. I was shocked. It was the first time I’d heard Congress laugh AT the President rather than with him. At that moment I knew they were going to do everything possible to bring him down.
The Republicans hate Clinton so much because he is a Centrist, he does triangulate, he is basically a liberal Republican. They hate him because they fear him since he knows how to lead to a majority. That is something they cannot do, except with the flim-flam play acting of Ronald Reagan.
I think it is only an unforeseen development that Clinton’s impeachment tends to innoculate Bush/Cheney from impeachment now. But that is a paper shield tearing as we speak.