Once upon a time, a group of people on the Far Left side of a great battle took a stand, and it saved this country.
Once upon a time, those people on the Far Left, knowing the odds were stacked hugely against them, faced down a superior, better-armed enemy, and changed the course of history.
Once upon a time, with their very lives on the line, the people on the Far Left, knowing that the very future of the United States of America might well be on their shoulders, made a conscious decision to proceed anyway with what to any pragmatic, rational person looking on would look like a mission that was doomed to defeat.
(Also available at My Left Wing)
A few months after those people on the Far Left made their heroic, historic, world-changing stand, the president of the United States of America looked out on the scene of that stand, and spoke these words:
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate - we can not hallow - this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
In one of the many comment threads that have been generated on DailyKos about the wisdom or foolishness of impeachment, skippythebox wrote something a week or two ago that resonated with me:
This would not be the time that I would choose if given a choice to do this thing. This would not be the ground on which I would make a stand if I had a choice in the matter since it is not the best ground to fight this engagement for my team. And much can be said for a tactical redeployment to attempt to engage the enemy on their flank.
But I do not have a choice. Contact has been made with the enemy. They are not in an overly strong position and their forces are partially disrupted and dispersed and it is doubtful that they have coherent communications between their units.
The ground I am on may not be the best, it may not be the ground of my dreams on which to take a stand, but it is still good ground.
The timing is not the best, nor my ideal time in which to strike. But it is still good enough. And any tactical redeployment I make will also give the enemy time to get their position in order.
skippy's comment, intentionally or not, reminded me of the pivotal Battle of Gettysburg during the Civil War. In that battle, Union troops decisively defeated the Confederate army, and prevented Robert E. Lee's troops from marching all the way to Washington. Had the outcome of the battle been different, it is very likely the Union would have lost the war, and the Confederacy - and all that it stood for - prevailed. The United States of America would have ceased to exist.
Gettysburg was a three-day battle that ran from July 1 through July 3, 1863. The first skirmish in the battle occurred when Union Gen. John Buford's cavalry staged a textbook "defense-in-depth" to hold off two Confederate brigades, and maintain the Union hold on the high ground south and east of the town of Gettysburg.
Buford, in spite of being outnumbered and with no Union backup at the time, recognized the importance of the high ground, and had planned his defense the day before. In his compelling fictionalized account of the the Battle of Gettysburg, The Killer Angels, author Michael Shaara imagined the exchange between Buford and one of his two brigade commanders as they weighed their options on June 30:
"If you want to fight here, sir, this sure is lovely ground. We tuck in here behind this stone wall and I'd be proud to defend it. Best damn ground I've seen all day."
Buford said, "It is that." But he had only two brigades. He was only a scout. The big infantry was a long day's march behind him. But Gamble was right: it was lovely ground.
Buford knew that his small force of cavalry could not hold off the entire Confederate Army for very long. But he knew the stakes, and he knew he had no choice. He spoke to his other brigade commander:
Devin rode back, asking for instructions as to where to place his brigade. He had a cheery boyish face, curly yellow hair. He had much more courage than wisdom. Buford said abruptly, accusing, "You know what's going to happen in the morning?"
"Sir?"
"The whole damn Reb army's going to be here in the morning. They'll move right through town and occupy those damned hills - " Buford pointed angrily - "because one thing Lee ain't is a fool, and when our people get here Lee will have the high ground and there'll be the devil to pay."
Devin's eyes were wide. Buford turned. The moods were getting out of hand. He was no man for war councils, or teaching either, and no sense in brooding to junior officers - but he saw it all with such metal brilliance: Meade will come in slowly, cautiously, new to command, wary of reputation . . . So he will set up a ring around the hils and when Lee's all nicely dug in behind fat rocks Meade will finally attack, if he can coordinate the army, straight up the hillside, out in the open in that gorgeous field of fire, and we will attack valiantly and be butchered valiantly and afterward men will thump their chests and say what a brave charge it was.
The vision was brutally clear . . . If we withdraw - there is no good ground south of here. This is the place to fight.
Buford wasn't sure the rest of the Union Army, led by Gen. John Reynolds, would back him up.
He rode slowly away to inspect the ground in front of him, between him and the Rebels. If we made a stand here, how long do you think we could hold? Long enough for John Reynolds to get here with the infantry? How long would that take? Will Reynolds hurry? Reynolds is a good man. But he might not understand the situation. How do you make him understand? At this distance. But if you hold, you at least give him time to see the ground.
So what does all of this have to do with the prospect of the impeachment of members of the Bush administration?
It's about holding the high ground until the infantry arrives. It's about recognizing the high ground and its importance, and hoping the infantry arrives in time to use the high ground. It's about fighting the indispensable fight against an enemy that has generated an aura of invincibility.
There has been no lack around here of heated discussion about the advisability of impeachment. It seems that those discussing the issue fall into one of four general camps: (1) Impeach NOW!; (2) Impeach after investigations; (3) Investigate, and see what those investigations bring; and (4) Don't impeach.
"IMPEACH NOW!" does not make sense. Of course we can't have impeachment now. It's like hartford for lamont wrote in a comment yesterday -
the impeachment of bush & cheney is akin to a spaghetti sauce made fresh from scratch that will take a long time to simmer to taste just right.
It's not like the Jetsons, where you push a button and - hey presto! - there's your spaghetti!
We need to bring in the truckloads of evidence against Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and Rice and dump them on their front lawn before we knock on their front doors. Here's your Articles of Impeachment! Have a nice 2007!
And I have no doubt that that will happen.
For a while there, I feared that the heat, the fire, the absolute demand that the timely, diligent investigations that will produce these truckloads would not be pursued. That fear was based, first, somewhat on what Speaker Pelosi said about impeachment being "off the table," and second, on what has been said on this forum about "pragmatism," "guarantees of success", "popular sentiment" and "overturning elections"
With regard to Pelosi's words, I have come to terms with that by convincing myself that her choice of words was very politic, and shrewd. My guess is that a strong belief burns in her, a belief in the necessity to restore the rule of law in this country, and hold those accountable who have worked so hard and long to destroy it. My guess is that she will not allow the multiple, egregious transgressions of this administration to continue one more day without rigorous oversight.
My fear, though, with respect to others on the left is still niggling. I'm reasonably certain that there are still many who believe that, in spite of mountains of evidence demonstrating culpability of the most egregious nature, impeachment would inhibit implementation of the larger Democratic agenda for the country. Objection noted. However, I respectfully disagree.
As skippythebox pointed out in another comment, the presence of George Bush in the Oval Office is the biggest stumbling block there is to fulfillment of the Democratic Party agenda in this country. If George Bush will not observe - never mind actively enforce - laws that have been duly passed by Congress and signed into law - signed, in many cases, even by himself - what possible reason on earth does anyone have to believe that he will (a) approve, or (b) abide by, laws over which he has veto power and with which he fundamentally disagrees? To believe that fulfilment of a Democratic agenda is possible with George Bush in the White House is as delusional as the man himself.
Consider: George Bush has vetoed exactly ONE bill sent to his desk in six years. Which bill was it? That bill passed a Republican-led Senate, 63-37. Any Democratic measure coming out of the 110th Congress that does not have a veto-proof majority is in trouble with Bush in the White House. Does anyone honestly think Bush won't fight tooth and nail to protect the interests of his healthcare industry cronies? Does anyone honestly think Bush will approve any measures designed to increase transparency in government? Minimum wage? Tax reform? Lobbying reform? Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission? Student loan restructuring? In short, just exactly which part of Speaker Pelosi's first 100 hours does anyone think George W. Bush will get behind?
I happen to agree with at least one regular contributor to this site, who wrote yesterday,
This is an era of hardball politics, and the GOP clearly has no intention to play nice. They aren't even going through the motions or pretending to be more collegial. So while our side can talk nice, their actions should reflect the current political reality.
Some have argued that, given that Nixon was about to be impeached, and Clinton was, in fact, impeached, the subsequent actions of the current administration demonstrate that impeachment has not served as a "deterrent" to executive malfeasance. I would argue that the issue is not one of "deterrence"; it's one of disaster response. It's about impeachment being the only tool remaining with which to rein in a chief executive run amok. In case anyone hadn't noticed, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales and Condoleezza Rice don't particularly care what anyone says, thinks or even does about their executive decisions. Let's send some more troops to Iraq! Let's abduct Americans off the street, render them to another country, and torture them! Let's eviscerate the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act! Let's keep awarding huge contracts to our cronies for defense and Iraq construction! Let's ignore the Supreme Court!
How much more of such activities are we prepared to accept?
What tools are available to address those excesses of the executive branch?
None of those things falls under the purview of Congress, except to the extent that Congress is willing to cut funding for them. How long do we want to wait for a cutoff of funds to have an impact?
As for the issue of an impeachment overturning the results of an election? Of course impeachment overturns an election. Duhhh! I'm reasonably certain - even though I wasn't there - that the Founding Fathers were aware that impeachment would only be used against elected presidents and vice presidents, and not against unelected presidents and vice presidents. (Although I suppose one could argue that in the case of Bush and Cheney, any impeachment would, in fact, be used against unelected officials . . . )
But come, let us reason together. Let's look at a realistic scenario. I have no doubt - especially given Bush's surge of insanity in the past couple of weeks or so - that the standard tools of governmental oversight - congressional subpoenas - will be ignored by the BushCheney cabal. It may well be that BushCo's political calculus is very limited. Once the investigations start, the choices probably will narrow to two: (1) Do they fight the congressional subpoenas (a la Nixon), and in so doing risk bringing down the wrath of Congress (a la Nixon), and be charged with obstruction of justice and contempt of congress (a la Nixon)?; or (2) Do they go ahead and turn over evidence, and risk opening up the full catalog of unspeakable transgressions, the almost incomprehensible, breathtakingly arrogant perversions of government perpetrated by this gang of criminals over the past six years, and hope that the public will stand by them as they try to use the "unitary executive" chimera to defend their otherwise indefensible actions?
I'm guessing this group of arrogant pricks goes with Door No. 1. At which time, Congress's choice of weapons will be narrowed to one.
A fierce day of fighting ensued on July 1. Buford's cavalry, having perfectly executed a "defense-in-depth," held the high ground and was joined by the main body of the Union Army. General Reynolds deployed his troops along the heights above the town, facing the Rebels. At the extreme left-hand end of the Union line, atop a rocky hill known locally as Little Round Top, a young Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, by trade a professor of literature at Bowdoin College, was posted in command of his 20th Maine regiment. The 20th Maine was the last bastion of the left side of the Union line.
Chamberlain's men came under fierce attack from the Rebels. As the carnage continued, the Confederate forces, led by the 15th Alabama under Col. William Oates, pushed Chamberlain's men back and back, "bending" the Union line almost to the breaking point.
The soldiers of the 20th Maine, decimated, exhausted, and down to perhaps one round per man, even after scavenging ammunition from the dead and wounded, were about to collapse. The left end of the Union line would break, and Confederate forces would flood in behind the Union army, annihilating it.
Chamberlain, knowing full well the significance of his position, realized he had only one option. He quickly gathered his officers and explained his bold, desperate plan.
"Fix bayonets!"
The cry went up among the 20th Maine. Bewildered soldiers, not quite certain of what was in store, dutifully obeyed. Then, the men of the 20th Maine plunged down the hillside, into the teeth of the Confederate forces, with only sharp steel and raw courage to protect them.
The Rebels attacking up the hillside - themselves nearly at the end of their endurance - could not believe what they were seeing. And the astonished Confederate soldiers - whom almost no one had ever seen run before - turned and ran.
Bayonet warfare is ugly and personal. You literally have to look into the face of your foe in order to vanquish him. It is not sterile, like launching a cruise missile from 300 miles away.
I have no illusions about any impeachment battle; it will be ugly and personal. Regardless of whether the arguments and violations center around Constitutional issues, the battle itself will be fought face-to-face, and will bring out the worst in many people.
But, like the bayonet charge of the 20th Maine on LIttle Round Top at Gettysburg, it will be necessary. And it will be worth it.
So much is at stake. So very, very much. We must not flinch from this disagreeable business.
The criminals at the heart of this administration did not suddenly spring from nothingness into being with the appointment of George W. Bush to the presidency in December 2000. No - the maggots that eventually became the noisome blowflies spreading filth, disease and death around the world from the White House got their start long ago, and were nurtured and fattened by many years of feeding in the dank, fetid corners of American government. They and their foul belief systems should have been exterminated from politics long ago, but few people recognized them for what they were - and so they were allowed to go on propagating, getting fatter, rubbing their filthy little fly hands together in preparation for the day when they would be able to feed out in the open, defying anyone to point out the obvious: That these tiny little men were and are nothing more than vermin, spreading decay and attracted by the scent of death, whose political existence, if not eradicated once and for all, will continue to befoul the world for years to come. Like a malignant tumor, this cancer must be removed utterly, leaving no trace; otherwise, it can metastasize and spread, only to show up again later and in another location.
This President, this George W. Bush, has seriously proposed, and has every intention of, sending 40,000 more American soldiers into an invasion and occupation that is illegal, immoral, unfounded and unconscionable. In no conceivable way will these troops help protect truly American interests. Oh, they will definitely serve the interests of a few Republican-connected oil and defense contractors, but they will in no way, shape or form enhance the security interests of the American nation. They will in no way uphold George W. Bush's sworn oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. What other test is there for a President to order men and women into harm's way as Commander-in-Chief? The national security of the United States is not at stake; these young men's and women's lives are. If anyone believes that this is not an urgent question, then I do not know what to say to them. This is not about politics, this is not about winning elections in 2008 - this is about not illegally sending American men and women to die overseas.
I don't know about you, but I did not work so hard to get Democrats elected to Congress in November 2006, so that we could win an election in 2008. There is no other "end" in government - obtaining and holding on to power is a disgusting Republican rationale for participation in the political process. I have always operated under the assumption that the Democratic rationale for government was to do the right thing, to improve the lives of Americans, to uphold the Constitution, to defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If I was mistaken, and if the be-all and end-all of Democratic participation in the political process is to get still more Democrats elected, please let me know; I somehow didn't get that memo.
Reasonable people can disagree. I happen to believe that we are at a crossroads in our nation's history. I happen to believe that the victory in November's elections gave us the opportunity to claim the high ground in this crucial, crucial battle. I happen to believe that we may make an irreversible mistake if we do not do so.
No one can foretell the future. For anyone, in this forum or otherwise, to make a statement baldly asserting that they are possessed of some special knowledge of what will happen in the future is ludicrous - and that most assuredly includes me. However, I will state my very strong belief about what I think will happen, and to a great degree, I feel a certainty in that. That is not to say that anyone else is wrong about their beliefs and their certainties. Obviously, only time will tell who was right and who wrong.
Does all of that mean that impeachment is to be taken lightly? Of course not. I have not advocated that, nor, as far as I can tell, neither has any responsible poster on this site. It makes absolutely no sense for those of us who advocate for impeachment to advocate for a hasty, slipshod pursuit of it. "Impeachment" per se is meaningless; it is, after all, only a means to an end. The end, in this case, is to help make our country safer and stronger by removing from power those who have harmed it and can continue to harm it; to that end, therefore, any impeachment must be pursued diligently and responsibly if that end is to be achieved. This is too important not to get right.
The battle for the past few years in this country is every bit as much a battle for the survival of the republic as was the battle fought on that hill in Pennsylvania 143 years ago. And Democrats, having attained the high ground of majority in Congress, the good ground, now have as our only weapon the congressional subpoena, and impeachment. We no longer have the weapon of the mainstream media. We don't have executive-branch law enforcement. We don't have the Supreme Court. It's just us, and the Constitution, here at the front line, crouched for the time being down behind a little stone wall.
But we have the high ground, for now, and the steely-eyed resolve, the implacable, unflappable, grim determination to do the job that, looking around, we see that no one else is willing or able to do. So come next month, we will fix bayonets, we will march downhill and we will wade into the very teeth of the Republican machine that has made war on the Constitution - our Constitution - for the past six years, a destructive war-making machine that has left in its wake so many casualties, a trail strewn with the victims of its defilement of the very founding document of these United States of America.
And maybe, just maybe, years from now, when American schoolchildren look back at this period in the history of our great country, they will recognize another set of heroes. Maybe - just maybe - they will be able to say something like what Gen. Chamberlain said when, 26 years after Gettysburg, he returned to the site of that unspeakably courageous and important bayonet charge to help dedicate a monument to the men of the 20th Maine:
"The lesson impressed on me as I stand here and my heart and mind traverse your faces, and the years that are gone, is that in a great, momentous struggle like this commemorated here, it is character that tells. I do not mean simply nor chiefly bravery. Many a man has that, who may become surprised or disconcerted at a sudden change in the posture of affairs. What I mean by character is a firm and seasoned substance of soul. I mean such qualities or acquirements as intelligence, thoughtfulness, conscientiousness, right-mindedness, patience, fortitude, long-suffering and unconquerable resolve.
"I could see all this on your faces when you were coming into position here for the desperate encounter; man by man, file by file, on the right into the line. I knew that you all knew what was staked on your endurance and heroism. Some of you heard Vincent say to me, with such earnest and prophetic eyes, pointing to the right of our position and the front of the oncoming attack, "You understand, Colonel, this ground must be held at all costs!" I did understand; with a heavy weight on my mind and spirit. You understood: and it was done. Held, and at what cost! Held, and for what effect!
"There is no need that I should recount to the friends who stand around us here, what would have happened had this little line - this thin, keen edge of Damascus steel been broken down from its guard. All can see what would have become of our Brigade; swallowed up, of Weed's struck in the rear; of Hazlett's guns, taken in the flank and turned to launch their thunderbolts upon our troops, already sore pressed in the gorge at our feet, and the fields upon the great front and right. Round Top lost - the day lost Gettysburg lost - who can tell or dream what for loss thence would follow! . . .
"In great deeds something abides. On great fields something stays. Forms change and pass; bodies disappear, but spirits linger, to consecrate ground for the vision-place of souls. And reverent men and women from afar, and generations that know us not and that we know not of, heart-drawn to see where and by whom great things were suffered and done for them, shall come to this deathless field to ponder and dream; And lo! the shadow of a mighty presence shall wrap them in its bosom, and the power of the vision pass into their souls."
The Union troops on Little Round Top did not keep their powder dry waiting for a better opportunity; on the contrary: they used every last bit of it. And after they had used every last bit of their powder, they fixed bayonets. We would dishonor their memory if we were to do any less.
Our Founding Fathers, pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors, brought forth at great personal risk to themselves a country the likes of which the world had never seen. The men who died on the blood-soaked battlefields of the Civil War, answering the better angels of their natures, gave their last full measure to preserve the dream of the Founding Fathers. Those who endured the trials of World War II and delivered the free peoples of the globe from a tyranny more terrible than any the world had ever seen have been called The Greatest Generation.
It is my fervent hope that when my grandchildren read about the early part of the 21st century in the United States, they will learn that a brave group of Americans stood up to a growing evil taking over the American government and slew it. I hope that they will see as heroes those who, perceiving the danger not only to themselves but to future generations of Americans - and to literally hundreds of millions of people around the world - fixed bayonets and plunged into the fray, uncertain of their success but steely in their resolve and icily clear on the necessity of their mission. Heroes of that sort do not dally to weigh to a nicety the risks-vs.-rewards of their actions; they know that the only real risk lies in not taking swift, decisive action before it is too late.
And, my fellow Americans, it is very nearly too late.
FIX BAYONETS!