Seems like an odd question to start a diary, doesn't it? Well, not to worry -- I'm not hitting on you. It's just that Thursday is the anniversary of a very important day, one I think we should all remember. And I don't think I'm going to have time to write this diary later this week. I actually don't really have time to write it now either, but it's an important history lesson, so please join me and fill in appropriate details in the comments.
On July 27, 1974, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives voted 27-11 to approve an article of impeachment against President Richard Nixon on the charge of obstruction of justice. Two more articles of impeachment -- for abuse of power and contempt of Congress -- were approved on July 29 and July 30.
Nixon's crimes were numerous. He had his aides spy on political enemies -- especially rivals in the Democratic party, anti-war protestors, and left wing interest groups -- without warrants. (And even with warrants, a president's aides don't have police powers -- they're not authorized to execute warrants.) He bugged their offices, tapped their phones, and, of course, ordered the break-in at the Democratic party headquarters in the Watergate complex during the 1972 campaign; Mark Felt (a.k.a. "Deep Throat," Woodward and Bernstein's secret source) reported that 50 agents had been hired by the White House to sabotage the Democratic campaign and essentially rig the election. Nixon used the CIA to obstruct the FBI's investigation into the break-in at the Watergate, in part by claiming falsely that the investigation would endanger national security. He also tried to use executive privilege to prevent Congressional investigators from proving his guilt.
In the course of the Senate's investigation into the Nixon administration, it became known that Nixon secretly taped all his conversations in the White House, and it was expected that the tapes would prove his guilt. The rat who was president asserted executive privilege, claiming that Congress had no right to hear those tapes. The Supreme Court, of course, disagreed (United States v. Nixon), with all justices save Rehnquist (who recused himself) signing on to Chief Justice Warren Burger's opinion that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter in determining constitutional questions (not the President), that no one -- even the President -- is completely above law, and that the president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is "demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial." The ruling compelled the Nixon administration to turn the tapes over to Congress. And, well, most of you probably know about the missing 18 1/2 minutes in one crucial tape.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Nixon resigned before he could be formally impeached, and conviction was certain. That, combined with everything I've written above (and all the details I've left out), makes me think that President Richard "I Am Not A Crook" Nixon isn't even in the same ballpark as Dumbya when it comes to the high crimes and misdemeanors the Constitution requires for a president to be impeached.
Consider that the ACLU showed in 2003 that the FBI promoted protest suppression by law enforcement officers and in 2004 that the FBI was spying on religious and protest groups. The New York Times confirmed it. We know all about the warrantless wiretapping shenanigans in conscious violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (folks here have written a lot about this, haven't they?), which was largely a reaction to the excesses and abuses of the Nixon administration. We know about the problems of electronic voting, particularly with Diebold, fraud in Ohio in the 2004 election -- perhaps not enough to steal the election, but problematic any way you look at it -- and the partisan bullshit games that proved in Florida in 2000 that "one citizen, one vote" is nothing but an empty phrase. We know that BushCo routinely obstructs investigations into their wrongdoing by claiming national security concerns. We know that Dumbya has shown grotesque contempt for Congress -- fitting contempt in that as an overall group, they're nothing but a bunch of sycophantic automatons; atrocious in the sense that they're still the legislative branch of the government -- by attaching signing statements to several hundred bills that fundamentally abrogate the will of Congress in an unconstitutional way. We know that BushCo is by far the most secretive administration since -- you guessed it -- Nixon. We know that BushCo is willing to ignore SCOTUS rulings they don't like. And we know that when BushCo proposes superficial changes to their policies to appease complaints about their illegality, they know Rethugs in Congress will rubber stamp it. And Dumbya can just attach a signing statement to any bill requiring changes anyway, so no changes actually occur.
This last bit -- that the Rethugs in Congress just rubber stamp everything Dumbya proposes anyway -- is what makes him so much more dangerous than Nixon ever was. During Nixon's administration, the Democrats held majorities in both the House and the Senate. Moreover, Rethugs of that time seem to have had a little more dignity and honor than they do today -- they actually stood up to the president when he usurped their power, and when the evidence showed Nixon was guilty of the crimes of which he was accused, even those Rethugs who voted against each of the articles of impeachment in committee announced publicly that they would vote in favor when the articles were brought before the entire House for a vote. And of course, with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito on the Supreme Court, we're not very far from total enablement of fascism.
All of the above crimes of BushCo are just the tip of the iceberg. Much more could be said, for example, about lying to the American people to start the illegal, immoral, and unnecessary war in Iraq. Much more could be said, for example, about the intentional exposure by BushCo of one of our own covert agents in retaliation for her husband's actions in exposing those lies. (Incidentally, exposing a covert agent in a time of war is capital treason -- you get the death penalty for that. I'm not an advocate of the death penalty, but anything shy of life in prison for Dumbya, Cheney, Rove, Libby, and anyone else involved in the lead is a miscarriage of justice.)
Obviously, impeachment isn't an option unless (until?) we win the November elections and take back the House and the Senate. We need Democratic congresscritters and senators to have subpoena powers so they can compile the evidence against Dumbya, Cheney, and the rest of the BushCo cabal. We need them to be able to convince their Rethug colleagues to stop siding with people who think the Constitution is a quaint little document not worth the parchment it's written on. And then we need to remove the lot of them from office.
Because 2008 is too far away and too long to wait for the government to start representing the people instead of itself, and to restore our credibility in the eyes of the world.
Update [2006-7-25 20:8:16 by wiscmass]:: I meant to add before posting this that while it's probably readily apparent to you that I favor getting rid of BushCo ASAP, I'm interested in hearing the opinions of others. Please comment -- tell me why you want to impeach or why you think we should just wait until 2008 to get a real president. I'm aware it's a big risk -- it backfired severely on the Rethugs when they impeached Clinton -- but I'm so disgusted by the excesses and abuses, I just don't know that we can afford to wait.