Hearing the Voices

Well, our "Decider"-in-Chief thinks Crummy's doing a heckuva job, and that all's right in the world. He "hear[s] the voices" and "read[s] the front page," but I can tell you one thing he's not currently reading (or if he is or has, it probably isn't sinking in quite yet): Carl Bernstein's piece in Vanity Fair. These are the kinds of "voices" Smirk needs to be listening to, and his henchfolks also should be thinking it over as well, because Bernstein is just the latest in a chorus of voices calling for further examination of the administration's tactics, actions, and missteps.

Bernstein starts off by posing the question, "Worse than Watergate?" While Woodward is definitely in the administration's camp these days, Bernstein seems not to have suffered any fading memories of Watergate and executive abuses of power. Neither has John Dean; his appearance at the censure hearings on April 1 underscored the need to shed full and complete light on everything, from Smirk's admitted wiretapping in violation of FISA to Smirk and Blair's hell-bent push for war in Iraq to the Valerie Plame leak-- and that doesn't even take into account the administration's foul-ups before, during, and after the fury of Katrina last summer.

So far, even though he admitted breaking the law (here as well), Smirk has yet to be called to account, or even compelled to explain why listening in on any citizen's conversations in violation of FISA. The Senate Intelligence Committee, under Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), decided to abdicate its responsibility to fully investigate the matter (see here and here); the committee has yet to fully wrap up though, allowing Democrats to use the lame excuse that because the matter was still under "investigation," they wouldn't comment on or support Senator Russ Feingold's (D-Wisconsin) call for censure.

Some polls of late show more and more people believing Smirk lied about Iraq, and that if he did, impeachment is warranted; considering that just about everything that has been claimed about Iraq has turned out to be false, it's appalling Congress hasn't stepped up to the plate and assumed its constitutional responsibilities. From the Downing Street Memo to the recent information that Bush and Blair discussed sending in a decoy U-2 plane in U.N. colors to precipitate war in Iraq, it's pretty clear (to me at least) that Bush was determined to foment war, whether there was concrete evidence or not, and under false pretenses. How can something like this not be impeachable, or at the very minimum, censureable? For a straightforward overview, check out Wikipedia's entry. For excellent coverage of all the pertinent points, try AfterDowningStreet.org.

I've covered the Plame leak, but again, how can a gummint ride roughshod over national security, expose a NOC CIA agent, and potentially place in danger everyone she's ever worked with, and not expect repercussions? The current indictment and pending trial of Scooter Libby (aka Fibby) for fibbing about being a total blabbermouth will hopefully lead to finally answering some heretofore unanswered questions.

Bernstein posits that it is necessary for "the American political system... to acquit itself," just as it did during the Nixon era. To do so, he states that any investigation

needs to start from a shared premise and set of principles that can be embraced by Democrats and Republicans, by liberals and centrists and conservatives, and by opponents of the war and its advocates: that the president of the United States and members of his administration must defend the requirements of the Constitution, obey the law, demonstrate common sense, and tell the truth. Obviously there will be disagreements, even fierce ones, along the way. Here again the Nixon example is useful: Republicans on the Senate Watergate Committee, including its vice chairman, Howard Baker of Tennessee ("What did the president know and when did he know it?"), began the investigation as defenders of Nixon. By its end, only one was willing to make any defense of Nixon's actions.

I have no idea where the Howard Bakers of today are; Specter, Hagel, and others pretend that they fit this mold, but it is actions that count, not just words. Words are hollow, and anyone with a voice can say whatever they want. Feingold is the only one thus far (backed by Tom Harkin and Barbara Boxer) who has stepped up to the plate and suggested that it is incumbent on Congress to act as a check and balance on the Executive Branch.

Bernstein goes on to outline the case for an investigation (and potential censure/impeachment), and closes with the following words:

After Nixon's resignation, it was often said that the system had worked. Confronted by an aberrant president, the checks and balances on the executive by the legislative and judicial branches of government, and by a free press, had functioned as the founders had envisioned...

There was understandable reluctance in the Congress to begin a serious investigation of the Nixon presidency. Then there came a time when it was unavoidable. That time in the Bush presidency has arrived.

I fully agree. The voices are calling, and Bernstein, who witnessed the decline and fall of one President, has firmly and strongly made the case for the need for Congress to frankly assess the decline of the current occupant of the White House. The voices I'm hearing, including my own voice, are voices of frustration, dismay, and most of all, honesty-- tell us the truth, even if it hurts. Tell us the truth, because our government, our country, our society cannot, should not be about deception.