The Case for Impeachment Hearings
Bob Fertik
January 26, 2005

On January 20, George W. Bush was sworn in for a second term. Should that put an end to impeachment efforts that began before the 2004 campaign?

Absolutely not. In fact, now is precisely the time for patriotic citizens and their Representatives in Congress to begin a serious, methodical effort to investigate President Bush, using every investigative tool available - including one-party Congressional hearings.

This investigation should seek to bring to account not only President Bush, but also Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Attorney General-nominee Alberto Gonzales, and all other senior Bush administration officials who conspired to launch an illegal war of agression against Iraq.

The Myth of Electoral Immunization

On January 14, the Washington Post asked President Bush about a new report that the Iraq Survey Group had given up on finding WMD's in Iraq. They asked a simple question: "Why hasn't anyone been held accountable, either through firings or demotions, for what some people see as mistakes or misjudgments?"

In response, President Bush offered what might be called the "Bush Doctrine of Presidential Accountability" - that Presidents and their top advisors can be held accountable only once in eight years during a Presidential election.

"Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called  the 2004 election. And the American people listened to different  assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me, for which I'm grateful."

Bush's claim that an election victory - which is disputed by many Americans - absolved him of all accountability for his actions in his first term is historically and legally ludicrous.

President Richard Nixon was in his first term when the Watergate break-in and other associated crimes took place. Despite these crimes, Nixon was elected to a second term in November 1972. But as details of the "Watergate" crimes came to light through the investigative work of Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, Congress began hearings which ultimately led to Articles of Impeachment against Nixon. While Nixon battled the substance of those Articles, he never challenged the right of Congress to draft Articles based on crimes committed in his first term. And in the end, of course, Nixon resigned rather than face certain impeachment.

President Bush's situation is entirely comparable. Many citizens believe Bush committed a series of crimes in his first term before and after his invasion of Iraq. These include:

• diverting funds approved by Congress for the war in Afghanistan to preparations for an unapproved war in Iraq
• lying to Congress and the American people about Iraq's WMD's
• failing to comply with the terms of the Congressional Resolution on the Use of Force in Iraq
• launching an illegal War of Aggression against Iraq
• committing war crimes in the conduct of the war against Iraq, including aiding and abetting the torture and murder of prisoners
• conspiring to nullify the Anti-Torture Act
• violating the CIA Protection Act by "outing" Valerie Plame

Just as President Nixon's "Watergate" crimes were only dimly understood at the time of his second inauguration, President Bush's Iraq crimes are only dimly understood now. Just as it took ongoing investigative efforts by journalists and Congress to reveal the full extent of President Nixon's crimes - and his personal role in those crimes - so too will it take ongoing investigation by journalists and Congress to reveal the full extent of President Bush's possible crimes.

In fact, various investigations into President Bush's possible crimes are well under way.

The most visible of these crimes is the torture and murder of prisoners, both in the Abu Ghraib prison and in other prisons and detention centers across Iraq and around the world.

How widespread were these crimes? Every week, the newspapers contain new disclosures. Since President Bush's "accountability moment" last November, we have learned...

Who is ultimately responsible for these acts of torture? That question came before the Senate during the confirmation hearings for Alberto Gonzales in January, two months after Bush's "accountability moment." Democratic Senators presented Gonzales with Justice Department memos that were uncovered by journalists, not by the stonewalling Bush administration. The memos defied American morality and international law by defining torture only as pain equivalent to "organ failure or death." Gonzales, who was Bush's top legal advisor, denied personal responsibility for those memos, and pointed his finger at the Justice Department. But when those illegal memos became the official policy of the United States, there was one person who was ultimately responsible: President Bush himself.

The crimes with the most significant impact were those that led to the invasion of Iraq in the first place - the lies about Iraq's WMD capability, and the Bush administration's failure to meet its obligations under the Use of Force Resolution.

As with the prisoner torture scandal, much of what we know about the WMD issue was revealed after last November's election. In January, the Bush administration quietly acknowledged its search for WMD's was officially over. But why did President Bush and his top advisors insist Iraq had WMD's during the buildup to war? That question remains under investigation by President Bush's Commission on Intelligence Failures. Of course, few Americans believe that Commission will reveal the truth, since its members were appointed by President Bush. To uncover the full truth, Congress will have to hold hearings and put top Administration officials under oath - including President Bush himself.

The administration's WMD alarms were crucial in persuading Congress to adopt Resolution ? authorizing the Use of Force in Iraq. But this Resolution was not a blank check; it authorized President Bush to threaten the use of force to get the U.N. to send inspectors to Iraq, but it required him to report back to Congress. When Bush decided to invade Iraq, he sent a superficial letter to Congress that did not comply at all with the intent of Congress.

The crime with the least ambiguity is the "outing" of CIA counter-terrorism agent Valerie Plame. There were only a few top White House officials who knew of Plame's identity; one of them intentionally and flagrantly broke the law by revealing her identity to conservative columnist Robert Novak. A special prosecutor is methodically narrowing the field of suspects to identify the perpetrator. If a top advisor to President Bush is ultimately charged with this crime, Congress is obligated to hold hearings to determine whether that official took instructions directly or indirectly from President Bush or Vice President Cheney.

Thus, the parallels between President Nixon's second-term revelations and those of President Bush are important and strong. There is no doubt that crimes were committed before and after President Bush's invasion of Iraq; the investigation of some of those crimes is taking place in various settings, and new discoveries are being made every day. Other crimes are not under investigation now, but deserve to be investigated.

These investigations should all be led by Congress. In President Nixon's case, Congress was controlled by Democrats who were willing to conduct a methodical investigation. The major difference in President Bush's case is that Congress is entirely controlled by Republicans who refuse to investigate any misconduct by their Republican President.

If the Republican leaders in Congress refuse to investigate White House misdeeds, how can President Bush be held accountable for any crimes he may have committed - or may yet commit in the years to come?

Democrats do not control Congress. But they can conduct investigations on their own, even if Republicans refuse to participate. Congressional Republicans frequently resorted to such one-party investigations when Democrats controlled Congress. And just this December, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committe conducted a one-party investigation of election problems in Ohio. This investigation led to a 102-page report that is far more comprehensive and credible than earlier one-party investigations by Republicans.

This is the course of action that Democrats should pursue now. Certainly, investigating Presidential crimes would be unpopular in Washington, where Republicans control the media as well as the government. But outside Washington, millions of Americans want the truth about Iraq. Nearly 1,400 soldiers have sacrificed their lives in Iraq, and 10,000 have sacrificed their limbs or even their minds. Taxpayers have already spent over $200 billion on the war, and President Bush wants another $80 billion for this year alone.

Without the cooperation of the White House and the Republican majority in Congress, it will be difficult and time-consuming to uncover the truth about the "Iraqgate" crimes. But that is precisely why Democrats should begin such an investigation now.