So Barbara Boxer took the first step and used the I word yesterday, and John Lewis and, I assume, some other brave souls in the House are mentioning the topic as well. It's good to see that happen, but where are the rest of the Dems?
Until I read Shock's diary today, I didn't understand why the WH didn't simply use the lawfully mandated procedures set forth in FISA. If the process is fairly simple, why not just get the warrants? Now that we know that warrants were being denied b/c of inaccurate applications and the misuse of information, the reason becomes clear.
All of us suspected, deep in our hearts, that this WH really didn't give a damn about the rule of law. That suspicion is now a confirmed fact for us. I suspect that it was a confirmed fact to many others on the Hill long before the NYT article exposed this program.
Our last president had articles of impeachment against him approved by the House b/c he lied under oath in a civil deposition. Our current president instituted a program that was clearly illegal, went to great lengths to conceal its existence, and then, when its existence was (belatedly) disclosed, said he had no intentions of stopping it. This later course of conduct is far more worthy of impeachment than the former course was.
A primary purpose of impeachment is to serve as a check on the usurpation of power by the executive branch. Since 1787, the nature and the scope of executive power has always been a major struggle, and that struggle has become particularly intense in times of war. Even basically decent men like Lincoln, FDR, and Truman overreached in their exercise of executive power in wartime. Since we do not have a decent man in the WH today, the risks are even graver now than those that were posed by the suspension of habeas corpus, the internment of Japanese-Americans, or the seizure of the steel mills.
The reaction of this WH to the exposure of this program and the general tendencies of W and of the people around him lead to the inevitable conclusion that impeachment must be placed on the table now. These people will never even consider curtailing (much less stopping) this program unless and until they face the potential of serious consequences for doing so. The Dems, accordingly, must put the issue in play now, and they must keep it in play through the 2006 campaign.
I realize that Biden, JoeMentum, and the rest of the Sunday Samaraui will not even consider raising the issue at this point. There is no reason, however, for Feingold, Obama, and Kennedy not to be openly raising the issue now. Guardians of the Constution like Byrd should be doing so, too. There is also no reason for Reid to not at least tacitly support them when they do so.
If lying under oath about oral sex was sufficient grounds for half the Senate to vote in favor of removing Clinton, then brazenly violating FISA and trampling on the Constitution is more than sufficient grounds for a decently sized contingent of Dems in both houses to start openly talking about impeachming W. It's not a question of politics. It's a question of taking their respective oaths of office seriously.
