Previous fervor for the impeachment of George W. Bush has subsided as of late. If--as is being reported--he's thinking about attacking Iran before the end of his second term, though, I suggest we need to strike up the calls for impeachment once again.It was a huge mistake to attack Iraq, and now we are cleaning up the mess. I'm all in favor of The Pottery Barn Rule. But if Bush is really planning to attack Iran, he would make a mistake of colossal proportions.
Since we are in Iraq, and we must fix what we have helped to break, I support General Petraeus in what everyone is calling "The Surge", even though it isn't much of a surge. It's actually a successful implementation of Counterinsurgency Tactics (working together with the populace to defeat the enemy instead of treating everyone like they are the enemy) that has caused most of the improvements in Iraq. These tactics, when implemented in limited areas of Iraq by Petraeus when he was a brigade commander, had wonderful success. I see the fact that these tactics are now being implemented nation-wide as a very good thing. Paetraeus is not betraying us, as some quarters have suggested. Petraeus is not George W. Bush's yes man, as they would have you believe.
What I do not support, however, is the rumors I'm hearing that President Bush is looking to attack Iran before the end of his last term.
Fox News recently reported:
Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach favored by Burns has failed and the administration must actively prepare for military intervention of some kind. Among those advising Rice along these lines are John Rood, the assistant secretary for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; and a number of Mideast experts, including Ambassador James Jeffrey, deputy White House national security adviser under Stephen Hadley and formerly the principal deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs.
Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, "everyone in town" is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections. (Emphasis added.)
Bush has made life for himself and his Administration way too simplistic (similar to the simplistic nature of their Iraq battle plans) by declaring the concept of pre-emptive strike against terrorists. From that standpoint it becomes much simpler to propagandize against any group to convince the American populace that 'any group' is a terrorist organization. This is a huge mistake. If we really knew the whole story about Iran, Iraq, and North Korea (charter members of Bush's "Axis of Evil"), to include America's provocations and attempts to exacerbate problems in these countries, it would surprise us. Instead we prefer the titillation of propaganda to the patient research required to unearth historical reality.
As for Iran, at best it would be the duty of the next US president to determine if Iran warrants being attacked. Hopefully that's all the Bush administration is doing is putting together contingency plans. But it doesn't sound that way according to the report from Fox News.
If George W. Bush is really rattling his saber against the Iranians with the hope of having an attack consummated by next November, I suggest congress dust of its impeachment binders, roll up their sleeves, and get to work. At the least it would sidetrack his attempts to colonize yet another Middle Eastern country. At best it would highlight the grossly inadequate way with which another Establishmentarian has mismanaged American foreign policy. And it might get the President released from his job a couple months early.
You can't seriously be suggesting that we impeach for something that Bush may do?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the Constitution is clear on what is an impeachable offense, and I'd hardly see anything that has happened with Iraq that would rise to an impeachable offense.
Actually, I'm suggesting we do it for something that Bush may do again.
ReplyDeleteYes, the first time was an impeachable offense according to many people, me included. I may be a Republican, but I agree with Rocky Anderson on this one.
I'm surprised to find you on this side of this issue Frank. I agree with you that attacking Iraq was a huge mistake (which should have taught this administration how foolish it would be to preemptively attack Iran) and that the Pottery Barn Rule applies there.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand I am not convinced that attacking Iraq was an impeachable offense - if it was we should proceed with impeachment regardless of his plans towards Iran.
If he really is thinking about attacking Iran we need to put up an even greater fight against that than we did against the immigration bill that failed twice this year. The last thing this country needs is to purchase another Middle East country that we just broke. We can't actually afford the broken one we are currently trying to fix.
David,
ReplyDeleteIt's sounds like we're fairly close to agreeing--just maybe not on the impeachment part.
A question for you and Tyler: Did you support the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and if so, why?
Also, this article that I wrote may help explain why I've come to feel that impeachment is probably warranted.
Frank,
ReplyDeleteI know what you're getting at. If Clinton was impeachable because he lied, then so is Bush. Folks in the position to bring impeachment don't think that Bush lied, though.
Neither do I. (And in fact, I don't think adultery warrants impeachment, nor was impeachment of Clinton pursued for that sin.)
For example, Hillary Clinton came out during the lead up to war urging the senate to act against Saddam for WMD. If those in the Senate with access to the same intelligence as the President could vote to sanction Saddam for WMD, and they get no backlash, then the President is deserving of the same treatment.
So, no calls for impeachment will come from me.
And, no, I don't think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, although mistakes were made subsequent to the invasion.
Tyler,
ReplyDeleteFair enough. I wasn't trying to insinuate anything, but rather just wondered if you thought that Clinton should have been impeached.
I think the invasion was a mistake, and that Hillary said what she said (a) because she was lazy and didn't read the National Intelligence Estimate, and (b) because she trusted the Bush administration when she shouldn't have.
The people of Iraq never trusted us much anyway, because (a) George HW Bush lied to the Shia after Desert Storm and got a lot of them killed because of it, and (b) we were part of the UN sanctions that harmed the Iraqi people and weren't much more than a mosquito's nuisance to Saddam himself.
But the people of Iran still trust us to some extent. They hate our government, because we have caused such problems for them as the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad. But they like the American way of life and they want to be like Americans. To attack Iran would be a collossal mistake on top of the fairly large mistake of attacking iraq. If we attack Iran we will generate a national solidarity uprising that will very likely completely legitimize in the eyes of nearly all Iranian people everything that Mahmoud and the Ayatollahs have done.
Even if you did manage an impeachment, think of who becomes president? Not much of a solution to the Iran issue is it?
ReplyDeleteThe impeachment process itself would last for nearly the remainder of Bush's presidency. What an impeachment would accomplish is:
ReplyDelete(a) Remind the American people that a president cannot become a law unto himself,
(b) Slow down the "bomb-Iran" juggernaut, and
(c) Remind the American people how stupid it is to keep electing Establishment wonks and expecting things to get better for us in America.
Of course you are likely correct even looking to the long term (after the next presidential election). Clearly, though, there is one choice to ensure that America doesn't go off half cocked again, this time against Iran.
That choice is Ron Paul.
Even if you did manage an impeachment, think of who becomes president? Not much of a solution to the Iran issue is it?
ReplyDeleteThis is the main problem behind impeachment of Bush. Cheney has already been pushing the neoconservative agenda from a weak position as VP, yet if instituted as POTUS, he would have far more power to wage war and mire us in the "quagmire" he discussed in '94.
You're probably right. Maybe my suggestion is not practical. Cheney would be much worse.
ReplyDeleteBut at least the discussion should be re-surfaced so that Bush understands that he can't run roughshod like a renegade all over the globe.
I must admit, when I first read your post, I thought you were having a go at satire...
ReplyDeleteSadly, I was very wrong.
Impreachment probably isn't the answer, but I think pushing for it might be a good wake up call to the administration.
For the record, I think Clinton should probably have been impeached, not for the infidelity, but for purgery. If not at least have faced some form of legal action. Any of us would have been locked up for committing the same action.
I'm not sure how I feel about Bush and the Iraqi war though... It wasn't the right decision to invade, and the more I read the more I am convinced that the web of deceit around all of it has gotten to thick for a person such as myself to get to the heart of what really happened.
Ron Paul would definitely be a breath of fresh air for the country and would be able to do a lot of good. Just got to get rid of all the dead weight in the Senate and the House as well.
UK,
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you came around to my way of thinking in the middle of your comment. I completely agree with your statement "I think pushing for it [impeachment] might be a good wake up call to the administration."