The more it changes, the more it stays the same. The same basic cast of characters who gave us Vietnam, Iran-contra and countless other public policy atrocities are still in power. They have been since the Reagan years, and some stretching back to Nixon. They may not have been out front, but they were there, behind the scenes, pulling strings, tucked into cubbyholes in the Pentagon and arcane, but powerful policy positions in the gigantic, byzantine Defense Department establishment.
But now, the heaviest of the heavy hitters - Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld - are at the pinnacle of power. And Bush's connections were their admission ticket. It's taken them 30 years to get there. Bush thinks he's on a mission from God, Cheney thinks he is God and Rumsfeld is cashing in. Do you really think they're going to walk away and just give it up in 2 years?
Before you roll your eyes and reach for the tinfoil, I want you to put aside your assumptions about this country. Like most Americans, you probably believe, at least somewhat, in our `exceptionalism' - the idea that America is different from, and better than, any other country. It's part of our national DNA. You assume that we will always be a democracy and that any attempt to change that would result in a huge outcry. You would be wrong.
Because look what is happening now. The Administration is illegally spying on Americans, and polls seem to indicate that the public, for the most part, supports it. Is there really any outrage? Hardly. This may be because the poll questions are absurd and misleading [Do you support the president's spying on terrorists?] or because the media for the most part have also fallen in line with [or come out in full-throated support for] the `we're only spying on terrorists and if you don't let us you'll die' meme.
But that's precisely the problem. That isn't going to change. As even Ann Coulter admits, they `own' the media. And with it, the ability to frame the debate.
We find out this week, from an ultra-conservative magazine [via the Huffington Post that the administration is gearing up for impeachment hearings--and here is where the first skirmish in the new campaign will be fought:
The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress.
"A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment," an administration source said. Sources said a prelude to the impeachment process could begin with hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. They said the hearings would focus on the secret electronic surveillance program and whether Mr. Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Administration sources said the charges are expected to include false reports to Congress as well as Mr. Bush's authorization of the National Security Agency to engage in electronic surveillance inside the United States without a court warrant. This included the monitoring of overseas telephone calls and e-mail traffic to and from people living in the United States without requisite permission from a secret court.
And why do they know what the charges are expected to be? Because, quite simply, they know which laws they broke. They broke them quite purposefully and blatantly and repeatedly. Without any discernable reason. when it would have actually been easier to get the `permission' from a secret court, which after 9/11 became mostly a formality.
Still, the formality and acknowledgement themselves constituted something of a check. Someone was informed of whom was being secretly spied on by the government. But this is not what is wanted by the chief enabler of this spying - who is Dick Cheney. After Bush was inaugurated, as Bob Woodward wrote, "Given Cheney's background on national security going back to the Ford years, his time on the House Intelligence Committee, and as secretary of defense, Bush said at the top of his list of things he wanted Cheney to do was intelligence.."
So Cheney's been in charge of intelligence programs since January 2001. Which explains a lot about 9/11. Because Cheney wasn't and still isn't really much interested in terrorism. [You will recall that he was, in the spring of 2001, appointed head of the `Terrorism Task Force'. It never met. It didn't actually exist.] What he really wants to do, apparently, is spyon his political enemies:
It was then that the NSA started receiving numerous requests from Cheney and other officials in the state and defense departments to reveal the identities of the Americans blacked out or deleted from intelligence reports so administration officials could better understand the context of the intelligence.
Requesting that the NSA reveal the identity of Americans caught in wiretaps is legal as long as it serves the purpose of understanding the context of the intelligence information.
But the sources said that on dozens of occasions Cheney would, upon learning the identity of the individual, instruct the NSA to continue monitoring specific Americans caught in the wiretaps if he thought more information would be revealed, which crossed the line into illegal territory.
Cheney advised President Bush of what had turned up in the raw NSA reports, said one former White House official who worked on counterterrorism related issues.
"What's really disturbing is that some of those people the vice president was curious about were people who worked at the White House or the State Department," one former counterterrorism official said. "There was a real feeling of paranoia that permeated from the vice president's office and I don't think it had anything to do with the threat of terrorism. I can't say what was contained in those taps that piqued his interest. I just don't know."
Very Nixonian, wouldn't you say? A paranoid public official, illegal spying? Enemies list? Except with Cheney, he's spying on his own people. To detect any sign of political incorrectness? Or discomfort with illegal acts, perhaps?
To get back to the hearings. It is not a stretch to think that some Republicans may support impeachment.
"Impeachment is a remedy," Mr. Specter said on Jan. 15. "After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution. But the principal remedy under our society is to pay a political price."
Mr. Specter and other senior members of the committee have been told by legal constitutional experts that Mr. Bush did not have the authority to authorize unlimited secret electronic surveillance. Another leading Republican who has rejected the administration's argument is Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas.
Some of them are, of course, potential Republican presidential candidates, who may savor a chance to look strong on the Constitution - or who might actually believe in it. But this is what it will come down to: Rove believes that fear will trump everything else - as it has throughout history.
At any other time, we would not be having this debate, nor would we be having a debate about torturing possibly innocent individuals. But whatever happened on 9/11 [and there are many narratives] it did change everything. We were attacked on our own soil by a terrifyingly elusive enemy, and we live in fear. We live in fear.
Rove wants to have this discussion - he may even have planned it as a trap for Democrats and rogue Republicans. Think about it -who would be impeached? Bush? So Cheney would be president? How exactly would that be an improvement? And is it possible to impeach both -in a `time of war'?
Even if it were, the line of succession is full of cronies and incompetents. What would be gained? The biggest likely effect would be to deflect the spotlight from the upcoming trials of numerous Republican lobbyists and congress members - exactly what Karl wants.
And even if there were initial support from some Republicans, once it got underway that would quickly evaporate.They can't afford to risk the wrath of the RNC. So you would have Democrats attacking the president in a time of war. You would have a forum for Republicans to hammer relentlessly on Democrats being soft on terrorism and undermining Bush's efforts to protect the people. Disloyal. Traitorous. Just before the 2006 elections.
Rove has already thrown down the gauntlet and laid out where he's going. No fancy arguments, no nuance, no legalities. Just a naked attempt to cow and terrify. Because he is a psychological terrorist, a street fighter, an insurgent, himself.
As he said Monday,"The United States faces a ruthless enemy -- and we need a commander-in-chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity that American finds itself in," Rove said. "President Bush and the Republican Party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats."
While our senators blither on about laws and civil rights, he will get to the heart of the matter. Would you rather your president obey the law, or save your ass? will be the meme. And you know what people will choose.
They will not understand that this is a false argument - it would be easy to amend FISA. They will not understand there's no coherent reason to give this power to the administration, they will not understand that it's simply the next step in putting the executive branch utterly above the law, any law. Here's the playbook, straight from the horse's mouth:
Administration sources said Mr. Bush would wage a vigorous defense of electronic surveillance and other controversial measures enacted after 9/11. They said the president would begin with pressure on Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Bush would then point to security measures taken by the former administration of President Bill Clinton.
"The argument is that the American people will never forgive any public official who knowingly hurts national security," an administration source said. "We will tell the American people that while we have done everything we can to protect them, our policies are being endangered by a hypocritical Congress."
And once they have won that battle, and driven Congress to its lowest level of public approval ever [as they have, indeed, already done] - how long before they demonize it and marginalize it the point where it is completely impotent to act as anything but a rubber stamp for Bush's [and lobbyists'] policies? Which is largely true already.
Stack the courts, get rid of Congress, bingo! Got your absolute power right here. Who will stand in their way?
What we must do now, above all, is concentrate on is the 2006 elections. If the corruption scandal spreads far enough - as it well may - and the media focuses on it, which they might if not distracted by impeachment hearings, we have the possibility of taking back the House, and regaining some leverage. It might be our last chance.