Lapham's Case for Impeachment
By Terrence McNally, AlterNet. Posted March 21, 2006.
Harper's editor Lewis Lapham explains why he wrote his provocative
essay arguing for the impeachment of George W. Bush. Tools
In November 1972 Richard Nixon won 61 percent of the popular vote,
carried 49 of 50 states and won the Electoral College 520-17. Yet only
three months later the Senate voted 77-0 to hold hearings investigating
the Watergate break-in and its coverup -- a bit of petty theft, a
campaign dirty trick that could hardly have made the difference in one
of the most lopsided elections in U.S. history. A year later the House
voted 414-4 that the Judiciary Committee investigate whether there were
grounds for impeachment. Three articles of impeachment were eventually
approved by the committee, and in August 1974 Nixon resigned before he
could actually be impeached.
In 1999 Bill Clinton was acquitted by a vote of the full Senate after
being impeached over lying about an extramarital affair.
Today George W. Bush sits apparently shielded from accountability by
loyal and unified Republican control of the House and Senate. Bush, who
deceived this nation into a catastrophic war and has admitted domestic
wiretaps without warrants in clear violation of federal law, has seemed
invulnerable to even the possibility of impeachment.
Is the tide finally beginning to turn?
Lewis Lapham, editor of Harper's Magazine for nearly 30 years, wrote a
cover essay for the March issue of the magazine that makes a strong and
well-reasoned case for the impeachment of George W. Bush. Lapham has
recently shifted roles, becoming editor emeritus so that he can devote
himself to editing Lapham's Quarterly, a new journal about history,
while continuing to write his monthly column for Harper's.
TERRENCE MCNALLY: I had to go to four newsstands to buy a copy of the
March issue of Harper's. The first three were sold out. I assume it's
because of the red sleeve attached to the cover with the words "IMPEACH
HIM" in large bold letters. Why did you write this now?
LEWIS LAPHAM: In late December I came across a report that had been
assembled by congressman John Conyers of Michigan which lays out much
of this case. He had begun to assemble a report a year ago in May,
before the discovery of the Bush administration's use of the NSA to
impose electronic surveillance on American citizens.
TM: So before what seems most clearly to be a violation of federal law?
LL: Right. Conyers held a series of hearings last summer on what are
known as the Downing Street Minutes, a series of memoranda that were
exchanged back and forth within the British government in the spring
and summer of 2002, between its officials in London and its
representatives in Washington. It becomes very clear in the
correspondence that the Bush administration is determined to go to war
in Iraq no matter what the facts are. And it's clear that there are no
weapons of mass destruction, that there is no connection between Saddam
and Al Qaida, that Saddam is not in any kind of a position to pose a
threat -- certainly to the United States or probably not even to any of
the countries in the Middle East.
The British intelligence people are saying to each other that
Washington is determined to invade, and they're going to fix the facts
to fit their wish. There had been suspicions and rumors of this for two
or three years, but here it was in print. The memoranda were not
rejected or contradicted by the British government. Conyers held a
hearing, and then sent a letter to the White House, the State
Department and the Pentagon signed by 130 members of the House of
Representatives.
TM: I'll bet most people think Conyers was out there alone. One hundred
thirty people signed this letter?
LL: It could be 120 or 124, but it was a substantial number, and it was
backed by signatures from 500,000 American citizens acquired over the
internet. The petition to the administration sought answers to
questions. This is what has been said -- what do you have to say about
it? And of course there was a stonewall; there was no answer whatever.
Reacting to that, Conyers then set out with his staff to find out what
could be learned from open sources -- press, books, congressional
testimony -- to establish that a criminal fraud was perpetrated on the
American people and on the American Congress in going to war. When he
released the report -- 182 pages with 1,100 footnotes -- there was no
mention at all in any of the mainstream press. As far as the New York
Times, Washington Post, the networks and so forth were concerned, it
never happened.
I called Conyers' office and asked if they could send a copy. I read
it, and it seemed to me an impressive piece of work, at least worth
being discussed and given broader circulation. I wrote the essay in
somewhat the same spirit that Conyers had presented the report, which
was to at least ask the questions.
I said to Conyers, look, you've got no chance of getting an impeachment
motion going in the House of Representatives, which is controlled with
an iron fist by the Republican majority.
TM: Whereas, in the case of Nixon, there were Republicans like Howard
Baker, not the lockstep partisanship that we face today.
LL: Exactly. Subsequent to writing the essay, I came across George
Washington's farewell address. In it, he says that we in the United
States must be very vigilant against the despotism likely to be imposed
by one party on the other. Our government only works with a balance of
power between the judiciary, the legislative and the executive.
TM: Some wise people I've interviewed have pointed out that while we
were one of the first to institute this sort of democracy, it doesn't
mean ours is the best form. Many other countries have learned from our
model and have instituted proportional representation, parliamentary
elections and so on. Here, short of impeachment, a president is assured
of four years, so checks and balances become all the more important.
LL: And I think that is a weakness in our system and a strength in some
of the European systems, where you can have a vote of no confidence.
TM: At this moment -- after Katrina, the release of the illegal wiretap
information, and 34 percent approval ratings and 70 percent against the
war -- you would call an election.
LL: Yes.
TM: I suspect this despotic reign may be reinforced by both John
Roberts and Samuel Alito with their interpretations of a "unitary
executive" and a more imperial presidency.
LL: That's entirely possible. We don't know yet, but I think that's a
pretty fair supposition.
People tend to forget that we have three branches of government, and
that it is the constitutional task of the Congress to assert its power
to correct the imbalance of power when it gets out of hand, which it
now clearly has. For Congress not to do this is an abdication of their
responsibilities.
Let's go back to the '70s. There were Republicans, Baker among them,
who knew that it was their duty to act as senators and not simply as
representatives of a political party. When you mention branches of
government to people these days, they're apt to think you mean Democrat
and Republican.
There was greater political consciousness during the impeachment
proceedings against Nixon because the country was emerging from a
poorly conceived war in Vietnam, a very clear demonstration of what
happens when the government in Washington acts in secret.
TM: Though not as assertive as they might have been, Congress did at
critical moments stand up to Johnson and to Nixon.
LL: They did. We've lost some of that backbone over the last 30 years.
There's been a softening of the American political will and energy
within both parties.
TM: Finally, given the political calculus we've just been talking
about, you do not see impeachment as likely -- what's your best-case
scenario when this kind of information gets out into the general
public?
LL: I hope for a gradual raising of the political consciousness. You
now see Sen. Russell Feingold suggesting a motion to censure of the
president for his actions with regard to electronic surveillance. A
motion to censure is preliminary to a motion to impeach. So you have
more people talking about it, and you have more people trying to
understand the constitutional crisis and what's at risk.
What's at risk is our constitutional system of government. More people
need to understand that. They also need to understand their power as
citizens. More people need to remember these people work for us.
Interviewer Terrence McNally hosts Free Forum on KPFK 90.7FM, Los
Angeles (streaming at kpfk.org).
.
|
