IPFS
Ray McGovern: My Take
Ray McGovern
More About: ImpeachmentMusharraf Out, Like Nixon; Bush Still In, Like Flynn - by Ray McGovern
Musharraf Out, Like Nixon; Bush
Still In, Like Flynn
By Ray McGovern
Most of the fawning corporate media
(FCM) coverage of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s resignation
Monday was even more bereft of context than usual.
It was as if Musharraf looked out the
window and said, “It’s a beautiful day. I think I’ll resign
and go fishing.” Thus, the lead in Tuesday’s editorial in
the New York Times, once known as the newspaper of record: “In the end, President Pervez Musharraf went, if not quietly, with
remarkably little strife.”
Certain words seem to be automatically
deleted from the computers of those writing for the Times. Atop the forbidden wordlist sits “impeachment.” And other
FCM—the Washington Post, for example—generally follow that lead,
still.
Very few newspapers carried the Associated
Press item that put the real story up front; i.e., that Musharraf resigned
“just days ahead of almost certain impeachment.” In other
words, he pulled a Nixon.
How short our memories! Three
articles of impeachment were approved by the House Judiciary Committee
on July 27, 1974; Nixon resigned less than two weeks later. But
what were those charges, and how do they relate to George W. Bush today? Among the charges were these:
-- Without lawful cause or excuse [Richard M. Nixon] “failed to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House…and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas…thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested in the Constitution in the House of Representatives.”
-- “Endeavouring to cause prospective defendants…to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony.”
-- “Endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency.”
The New
John Conyers
Fortunately, John Conyers, who now
chairs the House Judiciary Committee, was among those approving those
three articles of impeachment. Unfortunately, he seems to have
long- as well as short-term memory loss.
On subpoenas, he has let the Bush administration
diddle him and the committee.
What about favored treatment and consideration
in return for silence or false testimony? What did Conyers do
when President George W. Bush commuted Libby’s sentence, in a transparent,
but successful, attempt to prevent Libby from squealing on his bosses?
Conyers moved manfully to do what he
always does: he expressed “frustration,” wrote a letter to
the president, held a hearing, and then—nothing. This, despite
special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald’s parting admonition, “There
is a cloud over the vice president…And that cloud remains because
the defendant [Libby] obstructed justice.”
Misuse of the CIA
What about this serious charge? Here too Conyers’ behavior has been nothing short of bizarre, even
though he has been repeatedly briefed on how the Bush administration
played games with intelligence to “justify” an unnecessary war.
If further proof of the misuse of intelligence
were needed, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller
provided it in early June, when he released the findings of his committee’s
exhaustive investigation of administration misrepresentations of pre-Iraq-war
intelligence. Rockefeller summed it up succinctly:
“In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”
Despite all this, Conyers has not ventured
beyond flaccid rhetoric. White House minions no doubt poke fun
at the talking-shirt-cum-fancy-tie to which Conyers has reduced himself. He has given them—and the rest of us—little reason to take him,
or his committee, seriously.
But now…now with the wide attention
drawn by the serious revelations in Ron Suskind’s latest book regarding
White House misuse of the CIA, John Conyers wants us to believe he is
really serious this time. I’m sorry, but this conjures up the
familiar image of Lucy setting up the football for another attempted
kick by Charlie Brown.
On Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now”
on Aug. 14, Conyers said he was “the third day into the most critical
investigation of the entire Bush administration.” And in order
to demonstrate his seriousness of purpose Conyers said, “We’re starting
our work, and then we’re doing it in a period where Congress is in
recess. I’m calling everybody back.”
Many of those listening to Conyers
assumed he meant Committee members. Not so. Others thought
he must have meant key staff. Not so, either. There must
be something in the water here in Washington that prevents people—even
formerly honest people—from distinguishing between exaggeration and
a lie.
As if to prepare us beforehand for
still more timidity and ineptitude, Conyers rang changes on an all too
familiar theme. He complained that he is “maybe the most frustrated
person attempting to exercise the oversight responsibilities that I
have on Judiciary”—a clear reference to how he has let himself be
diddled by the White House…and an equally clear sign that he is likely
to remain diddle-able.
If the Constitution Is Good Enough
For Pakistan…
Tell us, John: if Pakistan can move
forward to impeach a sitting president and force his resignation, why
can’t you? You must recall voting for those three articles of
impeachment on that momentous day, July 27, 1974, and how on August
9 Nixon waved good-bye from his helicopter to the few remaining friends
lined up on the White House lawn. You were proud to be part of
the triumph of our Constitution in 1974. Is being chairman of
Judiciary simply too demanding at your age—many years beyond what
lawyers used to call the age of “statutory senility.”
Without any apparent tongue in cheek,
Tuesday’s New York Times editorial pointed a sanctimonious
finger at Musharraf’s abuse of power, noting that “the presidency
must also be stripped of the special dictatorial powers that Mr. Musharraf
seized for himself, including the power to suspend civil liberties.” The Times noted, “President Bush underwrote Mr. Musharraf’s
dictatorship, but it said nothing of the example Bush himself has set
in such matters—including rigging elections, as Musharraf did.
It seems the height of irony that the
relatively young and fragile democracy of Pakistan has been able to
successfully exercise the power of impeachment inherited from the framers
of the U.S. Constitution, while the constipated Conyers-captained congressional
committee cannot.
Under Pakistan’s constitution, the
country has a bicameral legislature with 100 senators and over 300 representatives
in the National Assembly. The president is head of state and commander
in chief of the armed forces. Sound familiar?
The difference is that, even though
impeachment of a Pakistani president requires a two-thirds majority
in the legislature, Pakistani lawmakers summoned the courage to check
Musharraf’s unconstitutional accretion of power by using their constitutional
power to impeach. And, facing almost certain impeachment, Musharraf
resigned.
In sorry contrast to your Pakistani
counterparts, John, you have chickened out. Have you no sense
of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
==============================
=======