I was born in 1971. I consider Bill Clinton to be the best President of my lifetime - hands down. Before 2000, I thought that Richard Nixon was the worst President of my lifetime - hands down.
Then George W. Bush came along. I have a new worst President of my lifetime - hands down.
During 2005, impeachment has been discussed often here on the blogs. There are many passionate appeals for impeachment, so I figured that I would examine the politics of impeachment, beginning with Richard Nixon
Richard Nixon (1974)
As we all know, Nixon resigned in disgrace on August 8, 1974. He had no choice, really. Three articles of impeachment had been drawn up, and his own party told him that the gig was up.
The factors that led to Nixon's resignation include the following:
1. "Deep Throat" - otherwise known as Mark Felt.
2. The investigative reporting in the Washington Post (Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward in better form)
3. The incriminating tapes
4. A Democratic Congress
5. The justifiable abandonment of Nixon by the GOP.
6. The American people felt that he needed to go.
One thing to note, and it is insignificant on the surface, is that Nixon was not impeached. He knew that he would be convicted. In other words, he saved face and resigned. At the end of the day, however, this is notable. Nixon's real fear was being thrown out of office, not being impeached. After all, impeachment, while notable, doesn't end your presidency. Conviction does.
Ronald Reagan (1986)
It is odd that at times, the Iran-Contra scandal is regarded as a footnote. Aside from the illegality of the operation, it also involved dealings with an enemy of the United States that were undertaken in conjunction with an effort to overthrow the government of Nicaragua. It wasn't just a scandal; it was a scandal that went international.
So what saved Ronald Reagan, while Nixon fell? Well, subordinates in the administration went out of their way to protect the President, as they fell on the sword hard. Congressional immunity given to crucial witnesses such as Oliver North hindered the investigation of Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh.
Reagan's claim that he did not know about the Iran-Contra operation would seem to be a weak one. After all, he was the President. If he did know, he was lying. If he did not know, he was not in charge of his own administration. However, Reagan was an aging President in his 70's. This, along with his amiable personality, allowed him to deflect criticism regarding his leadership. The bipartisan Tower commission would later determine that Reagan did know about the Iran-Contra affair.
Even though there was a Democratic Congress, there was no real appetite for impeachment. Watergate was considered a very painful era in the United States and there was a reluctance to relive that era. House Speaker Tip O'Neill told Reagan that he would not permit an impeachment proceeding to move forward; he said that he had lived through Watergate and would not put the country through a similar ordeal again. With regards to public opinion, there was not a positive sentiment for impeachment. For all intents and purposes, the scandal went meekly into the night, as Reagan told a national TV audience that he took responsibility for the scandal.
Bill Clinton (1998)
Of the four presidents affected by scandal since the end of the LBJ era (Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush), it is pretty safe to say that the Monica Lewinsky affair of 1998 that plagued Bill Clinton was by far the least significant scandal of all of them. After all, it was a consensual affair, albeit an immoral one, between two adults. It was not related to Clinton's governance of the country, as were the other scandals. There are doubts legally whether Clinton perjured himself, though even if he had, this did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. I believe that he did not, as seen by the lack of specificity of the questioning by the Independent Counsel
At the end of the day, an out-of-control Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr spent 40 million dollars, intimidated witnesses, and worked with a Republican Congress and an aggressive right-wing media machine to try to end the Clinton presidency. So what was the result of this expenditure of time and money? Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. Yes, that was all they found.
The Republican-controlled House decided to pursue impeachment proceedings, despite the fact that a majority of Americans were against impeachment. When asked why, Newt Gingrich said, "Because we can."
Even the loss of seats in the 1998 midterm elections and the resignation of Gingrich did not slow down the impeachment machine. The House voted to impeach Clinton, and a trial was held in the Senate.
As we all know, Clinton was acquitted easily in the Senate. And in truth, the process was influenced by intimidation. Tom Delay threatened his fellow Republicans with the loss of committee positions and/or primary challenges if they did not vote to impeach Clinton. In the Senate, many Republican Senators who favored acquittal, at the behest of their leadership, voted to convict so that the Republicans were not completely embarrassed and shamed. It would have not looked good to have only 33 or so votes for conviction.
There is no excuse for Bill Clinton's actions. He cheated on his wife and hurt his family - and he won't argue with those conclusions.
But at the end of the day, this story is not really about Bill Clinton. It is about an out-of-control Independent Counsel, whose shameful performance led to the end of the Independent Counsel statute. It is about a power-hungry Republican Congress, who could not stand the fact that Clinton was in their way, and had beaten their party twice in presidential elections It is about an organized right-wing media, which hounded Clinton incessantly on anything and everything and spread lies about him, simply because they knew that that they could beat Clinton otherwise.
And in the end, none of these groups did beat Clinton.
So yes, Bill Clinton was impeached. And I don't care. The only reason he was impeached was politics - pure and simple. If it had been significant and had placed his presidency in its death throes, Clinton would have resigned like Nixon had and not been impeached.
Of course, that did not happen.
George W. Bush (2006)
Yes, George W. Bush is now by far the worst President of my lifetime.
But I digress. After all, being a lousy President is still not grounds for removal from office - outside of elections.
But lying about a war, outing CIA agents, and illegal wiretaps are grounds for removal from office.
Let's examine each of the three:
With regards to the Iraq war, there is a compelling case to be made for impeachment. Bush lied to get the United States into this war. He will try to hide behind the "bad intelligence" argument, which he hopes will create doubt about his guilt. It may be unfair, but it could work. A "We said, they said" argument is hard to prosecute. It should also be noted that the LBJ administration was not always truthful with regards to the Vietnam War
With regards to the outing of Valerie Plame, it is an interesting case. It has now been reported by CNN that Scooter Libby has implicated Dick Cheney in this case. If true, this would be strong grounds for the removal of the Vice-President. Will this lead to Bush? Well, I have the view that Bush is a figurehead; it is Cheney and Rove that run the show. With this in mind, it is plausible that Cheney headed this entire operation without Bush knowing about it, although even as a figurehead, I find this hard to believe. Stay tuned.
If Bush is removed, it will be the illegal wiretaps that will be his undoing, in my view. The Bush people have admitted to this, so there is no doubt that they have broken the law. This time, there are even hearings, though they are tame at best.
Having said this, there aren't exactly widespread calls for his impeachment. The question is why?
Well here are some answers, and the Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton eras provide good reference material.
1. A lack of an insider source (i.e. Deep Throat)
2. The lack of investigative reporting on Bush's wrongdoings
3. No incriminating tapes; rather, this is the most secretive administration in recent memory
4. A power-hungry Republican Congress that will never take Bush to task; after all, he's one of them.
5. Reagan avoided impeachment partly because of Watergate fatigue. Bush may be benefiting from Monica fatigue.
The conditions 1-3 that are missing today were very much present during Watergate. This makes impeachment harder. Condition 4 is also an impediment that did not exist during Watergate. It should be noted that the Republican congress that worked so hard to get rid of Clinton will work equally as hard to keep Bush.
Based on these conditions, removing George W. Bush is currently difficult, if not impossible,
So, what conditions will make it easier to remove Bush?
A Democratic Congress - this will lead to real investigations that will hopefully lead to more of the truth being revealed. If the revealed story is as damaging as we think it is, it will hopefully lead to a Republican Party, already reeling from a sobering defeat in 2006, to finally be shamed into pulling the plug on Bush - as they did with Nixon. In addition, a strong opinion from the American people that Bush needs to go will help push him out the door.
Will this happen? Only time will tell.
Here's one last thing. In my view George W. Bush will not actually be impeached and then convicted by the Senate. He will resign to save face and avoid the embarrassment of a forcible removal. If Bush is impeached, this worries me, because he doesn't think he will be convicted. And he will probably be right.
Conclusions
I titled this diary, "The Politics and Impeachment." As seen in the above four (4) cases, the link is undeniable. Impeachment only occurred once in this group of 4, and it was the least significant scandal of the bunch. It happened only because of politics. If a scandal is legitimately serious and breaks wide open to the point no return, resignation will occur before impeachment - everybody will let you know that you are done. And removal is far more significant outcome than mere impeachment will ever be.
If anybody still has any doubts about the politics of impeachment, consider the following. The same Republican Congress that claimed to be about upholding the law when they tried to impeach Clinton now ignores the law with regards to George W. Bush.
So yes, impeachment is inherently political, and we must keep that in mind as events unfold.