Harper's lays it out

Harper's Magazine takes a strong stand in its March issue with an article called: "The Case for Impeachment" with the subtitle of: "Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush". An excerpt of it is available online today. While it is nothing new to those of us who covered Downing Street this summer, it's nice to see all of it in print.

It starts out introducing our favorite man, John Conyers, and questions him on just what he was thinking by introducing a resolution "to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment” in a Republican-majority House, given how the neocon Congress are nothing more than lemmings (slight paraphrase). Conyers goes to brass tacks in answering why:

“To take away the excuse,” he said, “that we didn't know.” So that two or four or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, “Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?” when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that “somehow it escaped our notice” that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law.

Excellent, Mr. Conyers. Most excellent. Lewis Lapham read Resolution 635 and his experience was, shall we say, very familar:

[O]n reading through the report's corroborating testimony I sometimes could counter its inducements to mute rage with the thought that if the would-be lords of the flies weren't in the business of killing people, they would be seen as a troupe of off-Broadway comedians in a third-rate theater of the absurd. Entitled “The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War"

Of course, in the end, Lewis comes to the same conclusion that any rational, non-kool aid drinking person would:

Before reading the report, I wouldn't have expected to find myself thinking that [impeachment] was either likely or possible; after reading the report, I don't know why we would run the risk of not impeaching the man. We have before us in the White House a thief who steals the country's good name and reputation for his private interest and personal use; a liar who seeks to instill in the American people a state of fear; a televangelist who engages the United States in a never-ending crusade against all the world's evil, a wastrel who squanders a vast sum of the nation's wealth on what turns out to be a recruiting drive certain to multiply the host of our enemies. In a word, a criminal—known to be armed and shown to be dangerous.

SMACK!

I wonder how much traction, if any, this issue will get. What do you think? Think it will go anywhere now?

As a side note, if you live in NYC (or close by), there will be a public meeting with Lewis, John Conyers, Michael Ratner, Elizabeth Holtzman, and John Dean on March 2nd at 8 pm about impeachment. It'll be moderated by Sam Seder of The Majority Report. It will be at:

Town Hall
123 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036

(cross-posted @ expostulation)