"The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush"Editorials
Open letter from Herb Van Fleet to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on July 18, 2007
Dear Madam Speaker:
By this letter I wish to add my small voice to the ever growing and increasingly outspoken chorus of those seeking action by the Congress to commence impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney.
It seems clear that such impeachments deserve immediate attention by the Congress given the performance of the President and Vice President over the past six and one-half years. There are many alleged “high crimes and misdemeanors” committed by these individuals. And these offences are not petty or inconsequential. They include obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit and perpetrating fraud against the United States, abuse of power, betrayal of the public trust, violating international treaties to which the U.S. is a party, and the President’s breach of his oath by failing to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” among others.
The evidence for these violations is overwhelming. There are recorded interviews and speeches, there are transcripts of testimony to Congress, there are memoranda and e-mails, and there are court records, including Supreme Court decisions; even books have been written that make very strong cases and provide ample documentation for these wrongdoings. But, in spite of the public record, Congress has sat idly by and let these affronts to our Constitution go unchallenged.
I suppose Congress’s refusal to act expeditiously and responsibly in pursuing impeachment of either or both of these individuals could also be seen as obstruction of justice. Its failing to exercise the powers granted to it by the Constitution for this purpose may also be an abuse of power. I don’t think the Framers would cite the word “impeachment” six times in the body of the Constitution unless they wanted such action to be seriously considered by Congress when justified.
I know that after the November, 2006, election you announced that impeachment of the President was “off the table.” With all due respect, I believe you are prohibited from doing so by your oath of office. You swore that you would “support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” that you would “bear true faith and allegiance to the same,” and that you would “faithfully discharge the duties of [your] office.” Clearly, this oath applies to the whole Constitution, not just to the parts that you may want to selectively “support and defend,” or “bear true faith and allegiance.”
In this regard, I believe you have a duty as Speaker of the House of Representatives to provide the leadership necessary and to initiate the impeachment process whenever conditions warrant it. I can’t think of any time in the history of this country when impeachable offences have been so blatantly obvious and so wide and deep in scope. Thus. If impeachment is not appropriate now, then when will it ever be appropriate? More importantly, what kind of message do you want to send to all those in the future who will sit in the Oval Office?
Is failing to act effectively giving tacit approval for the President, any President, to ride roughshod over the Congress, or the Courts, or the people at will? Can he or she be allowed to pervert the power of the Presidency to avoid accountability and responsibility? Surely, Madam Speaker, this is not the message the 110th Congress wants to have recorded in the history books.
Some contend that moving forward with this matter would result in a Constitutional crisis, I believe the exact opposite is true. As noted in "House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House, 108th Congress," “The purpose of impeachment is not personal punishment; rather, its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government.” The real crisis, then, is removing the impeachment process from consideration.
I suppose I’m like millions of others out here in the fruited plain who have been witnessing for some time now the gradual destruction of our democracy, the erosion of our freedoms, and the dismantling of our Constitution. Now, you can sit by and let the ideologues in the White House make this a nation of men instead of a nation of laws, moving it inexorably toward a monarchy, or worse. Or, you and the others in Congress can get off your collective butts and pursue the only remedy we the people have left – impeachment.
In fact, the only way to get our government back is by impeaching those who are trying to highjack it and use it to promote their own agendas. Furthermore, it is irrelevant whether or not the impeachments succeed. It is only relevant because it will affirm that our Constitution works as advertised, and that any attempt to hold it hostage for purely personal or ideological aims will not be tolerated.
Members of Congress, both houses, are well known for their blather and seemingly endless oratory. They shout their indignation and vent their anger and point fingers and bang their fists over one thing or another every time they meet (and sometimes when they don’t.) We all get it, you guys can talk the talk. But, when it comes to walking the walk, well, maybe that’s why the President and his faithful companion have found it so easy to walk all over Congress . . and the Constitution.
And so Madam Speaker, if you still insist on keeping impeachment “off the table,” then I would just ask that you make the short trip over to Arlington National Cemetery. Standing amid the noble souls resting there, you tell them that their sacrifice, their courage, their last full measure of devotion to their county was in vain. Tell them that their oath to protect and defend the Constitution and “bear true faith and allegiance to the same” with their very lives – at Bunker Hill and Yorktown, at Lundy’s Lane and New Orleans, at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, at Santiago Bay and San Juan Hill, at Cantigny and Saint-Mihiel, at Normandy and Okinawa, at Pork Chop Hill and Heartbreak Ridge, at Khe Sanh and Hamburger Hill, at Kuwait, and at Bagdad – is of no consequence today. Tell them the government they fought for and died for no longer appreciates their dedication to duty and honor. Tell them Congress has other priorities.
Herb Van Fleet
Tulsa, Oklahoma
July 18, 2007
