The Crossed Pond

Following up on this post.

I’m starting to come around to the idea that the only way to challenge this administration is Keyser Soze style, being willing to go farther than they are. I may be pretty anti-Bush, but I’ve certainly not gone round calling for his prosecution for war crimes, his impeachment, any of that kind of thing. I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.

However, it’s become clear to me that the battle between Bush and Congress goes a lot deeper than just the surface stuff they’re currently bickering about. It’s about, at its core, the fundamental structure and dynamics of government in America. The Bush position represents a walkback from over 200 years of our country’s Standard Operating Procedure, and a critical new reading of what the constitution means, or doesn’t mean, primarily concerned with the executive branch as some kind of super-government, not on par with the other branches, but hierarchically above them, beyond them, with only a tenuous, pittance of a connection that they need worry about. The frightening part is, they’re winning more battles than they’re losing on this subject, precisely because nobody seems to ever want to pull the trigger against the executive (and by that I mean impeachment, subpoena, filibuster, whatever), and because that fundamental restatement of the American experiment is going unchallenged except at the most surface levels.

I think, if the manifest and stated position of the Bush administration is that the only oversight Congress has over the executive branch is impeachment, and everything short of that is hollow and ignorable meddling, Congress ought to show him why it is that from impeachment comes oversight, whether you choose to academically recognize it or not.

I don’t want Gonzales’ scalp, mind you. I want the battle to be met.

To that end, I would rather impeachment proceedings be initiated against Gonzales now. It’s not that I want him to leave (or rather, it’s not JUST that I want him to leave); I would rather impeachment that might not work than some kind of negotiated resignation, precisely because the latter allows the administration to sidestep once again the direct challenge to the new skeletal structure of government that they’re laying. I also realize that there is associated with hardball opposition the political risk; middle America doesn’t like talk of impeachment, they don’t like such a high level of Washingtonian in-fighting (not that they don’t like in-fighting; they do). However, I think the case could easily be made that Gonzales needs to go, that the administration is stonewalling, that the administration and her architects have decided to rewrite the rules, and so, if any Congress is to have any role in the future in overseeing and balancing the executive branch, their rights need to be vigorously reasserted. I think the Democrats (and growing, if so far lukewarm, choir of principled Republicans) can cast the issue well, if they simply say “We’re done trying to negotiate with this administration, to try and whittle them down to reasonability on each and every bit of minutiae. If they aren’t willing to even accept a base level of playing by the rules, we’re no longer interested in quibbling about the game. At this point, it’s our way or the highway. We’re the referee here, and we’re blowing the whistle. Come in, answer questions under oath, or we’re impeaching everybody we have reason to believe acted flagrantly inappropriately, and you can answer questions under oath then; and believe me, we’ll be making a list and checking it twice on each and every statement out of your mouths.”

Anyway, here’s a good piece by Robert Kuttner making the beginnings of this case. Quote:

Instead of responding to lawful subpoenas, President Bush has invited congressional leaders to meet informally with Karl Rove and other officials involved in the prosecutor firings, with no sworn testimony and no transcript. Rove narrowly escaped a perjury indictment in the Cheney/Libby/Wilson affair. You might think these people had something to hide.

After the administration refused to cooperate, Republican Senator Arlen Specter inadvertently gave the best rationale for impeachment. Referring to the White House invocation of executive privilege, Specter warned, “If there is to be a confrontation, it’s going to take two years or more to get it resolved in court.”

Exactly so. By contrast, an impeachment inquiry could be completed in a matter of months. The White House, knowing the stakes, would find it much harder to stonewall. And Gonzales might well be asked to resign rather than exposing the administration to more possible evidence of illegality.

In refusing to cooperate, Bush puffed himself up to the swaggering truculence that has worn so thin, declaring, “We will not cooperate with a partisan fishing expedition.” But this investigation is hardly partisan, since several Republican senators and congressmen have called for Gonzales to resign. And if there were ever a legitimate subject of full congressional investigation, tampering with criminal investigations on political grounds is surely one.

for the record, I’m not so incensed about the minutiae of this case. I’m not even sure that Gonzeles et al did anything wrong, or at least illegal, in the US Attorney’s case. But, as with many other such issues, the surface story is only the tip of the iceberg, and what has me ready for impeachment is the fact that, under the smokescreen, the administration is once again recasting the very structure and function of governance. And, if left unchallenged, these views are going to take root, as they have already.

Challenge.