The disposable oath
[Posted at Huffingtonpost this morning... comments welcome there too]
When I joined the army and when I reenlisted five times, I did something that every member of Congress does. I took an oath to defend the Constitution as the core commitment of my service. Then the army sent me to eight different conflict areas to attack, or assist others in attacking, people who were not even remotely the enemies of the Constitution. Oddly enough, that oath said I was obliged to “defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.
I’m retired now; and since I got out of the army I’ve had more opportunities to oppose the domestic enemies of the Constitution, because they are mostly those who were or worked for my former Commanders-in-Chief. I was employed by scofflaws from Nixon through Clinton (Clinton violated the UN Charter when he bombed Yugoslavia… the US is a signatory, therefore the Charter has the force of the Constitution).
Yesterday, Congressmember Dennis Kucinich fulfilled his duty according to that oath by listing articles of impeachment before the House of Representatives that detailed the serial and blatant Constitutional violations by our current President. Kucinich made a prima facie case, but that’s not news to anyone with an attention span greater than a goldfish.
What’s news is that Congress is obliged by their primary duty — to which they took a solemn oath before God — to defend the Constitution; and that means voting to impeach anyone who has blatantly undermined it at every turn. The reason only a handful of Democrats will do so is that the Democratic Party leadership — which has enabled the Bush administration at every turn by refusing to take action or even investigate most of these crimes and misdemeanors — is more interested in winning elections than they are doing their sworn duty.
Today, Congress will refuse to even hear these articles of impeachment.
The popular wisdom — wrong in my opinion, but that’s beside the point — is that making Bush a defendant will vector in sympathy and hurt Democratic chances in November. So… winning elections –not part of their oath — has priority over doing their Constitutional duty.
While Democrats have played out this cynical strategy, the US government has continued to kidnap and torture people, kill, wound, harass, and displace millions of Iraqis, Afghans, etc… but that human misery and those rivers of blood don’t mean jack-shit to the leadership of the Democratic Party, because they have A Strategy. To them, these horrors only represent an opportunity… let Bush run free, give him enough rope… and don’t think about whose being water-boarded, or gunned down by some macho lunatic with Blackwater, or being raped then shot, or watching their parents slaughtered in front of them, or of the caskets that keep showing up at Dover, or of the limbless, disoriented legions of 20-somethings now moving among us.
Kucinich will be portrayed as peculiar, just as John Brown was painted crazy; but history and a just God that watches these Democratic Party operators wipe their cushioned asses with this oath to win an election will see things through a different lens.
They will be seen for the cheap con-artists that they are; and they have blood on their hands.
Moreover, until now there has been no attack on Iran because it makes no sense to do so. Such an attack will cost the US a broad tactical defeat in Iraq and the consolidation of nascent counter-US blocs around the globe… but if the numbers come in by September-October that show McCain to be the dangerous dolt that he is — the “hero” whose heroic act was being shot down while he rained bombs on Vietnamese — that McCain doesn’t have a snowball’s chance, then the absurd fantasy that the Bush administration will attack Iran — with all its profound consequences for the US’s malignant but profitable position and influence on the world stage — then… the administration could commit the last spiteful act. They could broaden their little, lost war to include Iran, and leave the new Democratic administration and freshly minted, bloody-handed, instrumental, oath-breaking, Democrat-controlled Congress with a swarming hornets nest of unpredictable and inextricable relations.
And some of us will say, you had opportunity after opportunity to stop this; but you enabled George W. Bush. You protected him and his coterie, because your elections were more important to you than either your oaths or the lives of countless human beings.
Shame on you all.
Howard:
I have often wondered about that part of the oath (though I have no personal military experience). Couldn’t it become the rationale for a military coup (a bunch of generals decide that an administration is subverting the Constitution, so they intervene to defend it from “enemies domestic”)? Taboos that mandate civilian oversight would have to be weakened first I suppose.
STAN: They already have.
11 June 2008, 8:14 amKim Alphandary:
Wow. We got a call from a friend and quickly flipped on the TV to C-Span Monday evening and were able to witness this tiny elder man — Kucinich — reading with skill and endurance (I saw the aids reading them again last night) the 35 articles of impeachment. Wow, to hear the basics of Bush’s crimes consolidated into one piece was profound. What great courage this man has.
At the time I thought to myself, I’m glad that I’m not a journalist right now because I’d be up all night and into the next day writing a story. I should have known that there would be virtually no coverage of the event at all !!! Even many of the alternative sites, even Huffingtonpost did not have this on their front page. Seeing almost nothing, to reassure myself that the event did indeed take place, I spent an hour searching the net to eventually find a complete list of the 35 articles of impeachment. Here: http://chun.afterdowningstreet.org/amomentoftruth.pdf
My conclusion: Virtually no one wants to impeach Bush because of the repercussions of doing so. The Victims are too many — spread far and wide across the globe — impeachment would leave the US open to far-reaching, unpredictable consequences — i.e. law suits, loss of military allies, chaos within the US as the polarization of the population would be pushed over the top, etc.! Instead our politicians prefer the current mode –> the self-devouring of our nation.
Bush/Cheney are responsible for negligence and/or conspiracy for major crimes: 9/11, Katrina, Guantanamo, Two Wars. Damn.
P.S. Stan – super thanx a million for writing a brilliant, powerful piece!!!
11 June 2008, 10:41 amcatlady/speck:
Nothing makes sense any more. Kucinich’s articles so clearly define the “misdemeanors and high crimes” against constitution and country. I’ve been emailing everyone I know, including my rabidly Republican family members, just to get the news out. I’ve left messages for my congressional rep, for Conyers, for Pelosi. I feel like a Who in Whoville, screaming out to some unseen Horton.
I’ve been curious, too, about the military–watching the string of retirements and replacements, listening to those who did speak up (as their words disappear into the grey void of MSM infotainment), wondering why nothing seems to make a difference.
Thanks, Stan, for this site.
11 June 2008, 8:02 pmaudrey:
There may be global repercussions of impeachment, but I suspect the real reason it can’t go through is that democrats and republicans alike were accomplices in many of the impeachable offenses. They can’t very well say “yes, that was a criminal act worthy of impeachment” if the record shows they voted to fund it, or if they voted to approve bills that authorized the criminal activities even after being briefed on the details.
11 June 2008, 10:37 pmeoinmonkey:
I know you do occasional movie reviews on this site, and the above piece and comments reminded me of a favorite of mine- “Seven days In May”, written for the screen by another angry ex-military leftist, the fantastic Rod serling. it concerns just such an attempted Army coup against the American government, perceived as being “weak” because of a willingness to talk to Americas foreign enemies (in this case the Russians) and pursue nuclear disarmament. The Oath comes into it quite a bit.
As to the question of impeachment, I think the “dont rock the boat/too many repercussions” angle is the most likely reason why so few people are behind it. Where would a far reaching criminal charge like this end? Its the same reason the US doesnt want to discuss joining the International Court of Human rights, preferring to pursue private and local prosecutions against its foes (most of whom, lets not forget, deserve to be swinging from a rope), such as the Iraqi trial that saw Saddam Hussein convicted and executed.
12 June 2008, 10:23 ameoinmonkey:
A couple of Serling samples from the aforementioned film:
“General James Mattoon Scott: And if you want to talk about your oath of office, I’m here to tell you face to face, President Lyman, that you violated that oath when you stripped this country of its muscles – when you deliberately played upon the fear and fatigue of the people and told them they could remove that fear by the stroke of a pen. And then when this nation rejected you, lost faith in you, and began militantly to oppose you, you violated that oath by not resigning from office and turning the country over to someone who could represent the people of the United States.
President Jordan Lyman: And that would be General James Mattoon Scott, would it? I don’t know whether to laugh at that kind of megalomania, or simply cry.
General James Mattoon Scott: James Mattoon Scott, as you put it, hasn’t the slightest interest in his own glorification. But he does have an abiding interest in the survival of this country.
President Jordan Lyman: Then, by God, run for office. You have such a fervent, passionate, evangelical faith in this country – why in the name of God don’t you have any faith in the system of government you’re so hell-bent to protect?”
and…
“President Jordan Lyman: I know what Scott’s attitude on the treaty is, what’s yours?
Colonel Martin “Jiggs” Casey: I agree with General Scott, sir. I think we’re being played for suckers. I think it’s really your business. Yours and the Senate. You did it, and they agreed so, well, I don’t see how we in the military can question it. I mean we can question it, but we can’t fight it. We shouldn’t, anyway.
President Jordan Lyman: Jiggs, isn’t it? Isn’t that what they call you?
Colonel Martin “Jiggs” Casey: Yes sir.
President Jordan Lyman: So you, ah, you stand by the Constitution, Jiggs?
Colonel Martin “Jiggs” Casey: I never thought of it just like that, Mr. President, but, well, that’s what we got and I guess it’s worked pretty well so far. I sure don’t want to be the one to say we ought to change it.
President Jordan Lyman: Neither do I.”
12 June 2008, 10:29 amPaul:
Kim Thanks for the link!
12 June 2008, 8:32 pmPhil Goldmarx:
I’m suspicious of Kucinich. He was endorsed by pornographer Larry Flynt months ago during his aborted campaign for the Presidency, and Flynt mentioned that he had been friends with him for 40 years.
12 June 2008, 11:33 pmStan:
Flynt is an execrable character. But the articles of impeachment presented before Congress did not appear to mention Flynt or pornography. Guilt-by-association is an argumentative fallacy that evades the actual content of a debate/discussion.
The resolution that DK read was pretty rock-solid, with such densely packed evidence that it took nearly five hours to read.
13 June 2008, 5:29 amm.c.:
RE: The subject of Picking on Condi Rice, Hillary Rodham Clinton, etc…(I lost track of the original thread)
Condi’s been up to her eyeballs with the neocons/neolibs for a long time. Chevron named a 129,000 ton Bahamian-registered(to save tax revenues) oil tanker after her & changed the name in early 2001 to avoid embarrassment. Also, according to Marcus Mabry’s bio of her, her primary graduate advisor at the Univ. Denver was none other than Josef Korbel, Madeleine Albright’s father. Small-world indeed….
Not all Straussians work for Repubs. William Galston is a prominent Univ. Chicago philosopher who worked in the Clinton WH as a Domestic Policy wonk.
13 June 2008, 1:21 pmm.c.:
Working Hypothesis:(please add or criticize if inclined)
How the Straussians have co-opted the Milton Friedman(Chicago School) & Austrian School loving {Ayn}Randians for their own purposes.
16 June 2008, 2:23 pmWhen Alan Greenspan, comfortably retired wrote in his latest book last year that the Iraq War “is largely about oil.”, was he committing the sin of honesty or partial honesty in the eyes of the true-believer Strauss/Wohlstetter gang/cult??? The Noble Lie must be maintained!? Most intelligent people knew this already but when a retired establishment figure finally says it, most of the future top-25 research univ. Historians are all going to footnote him.