Impeachment is a solution to a national crisis the way that suicide is the answer to your problems. We tell ourselves that suicide is not the answer under any circumstances, but then we read about terminally ill people who want to die with dignity and on their own terms. Impeachment is available under the Constitution, but it's rarely attempted, and that's a good thing.

I am no fan of anyone who has served as president in my lifetime, and the best that I can say about any president since 1960 is that Lyndon Johnson had some good domestic policies and signed a lot of excellent civil rights bills into law. He also appointed some good federal judges, as did Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. I have nothing else positive to say about any of our presidents over the past 50 years except that it's a good thing that none of them dropped the atomic bomb on anyone and, so far as I know, none of them ever held up a liquor store.

Placing blame

The best place to start in placing blame for the terrible political and social environment created by George W. Bush is the American people for electing a subliterate clown who relies on dangerous people for advice and remains plainly unqualified for this position. Say what you want about the disputed elections in 2000 and 2004; the elections never should have been so close that the Republican sleaze machine would find a way to grab it away from us. The greatest tragedy is that this pathetic clown can get re-elected in 2004 when it was clear that his policies were disasterous and the country was plainly heading in the wrong direction. Somehow the public relations experts that managed W's re-election campaign found a way to portray him as a firm leader and cast bogus aspersions on the opposition.

But blaming the American people can only take us so far. We have no idea, really, what is happening in the Bush White House. The Internet and a few excellent investigative reporters have continuously shed light on the outrageous incompetence and mendacity that characterizes nearly every policy initiative advanced by this administration. There is no consent of the governed. The American people have not supported the Iraq War in quite some time, and Bush's public approval ratings is in the sewer, and for good reason. What to do?

What does it take?

The Constitution outlines a procedure for impeachment. Maybe impeachment should be more common. Members of Congress resign with some frequency, usually the result of sex scandals, financial corruption and other shenanigans. In the private sector, CEO's are asked to leave and/or resign in the face of misconduct, criminal charges, incompetence and other foul-ups. Why is the President held to a higher standard?

What does it take to impeach the president? As Wikipedia tells us, "For the executive branch, only those who have allegedly committed 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors' may be impeached. Although treason and bribery are obvious, the Constitution is silent on what constitutes a 'high crime or misdemeanor.'"

So we look to precedent in determining what's impeachable. Again, Wikipedia:

In 1998, President Clinton "Bill Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed — a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote), and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote). He was acquitted by the Senate."

Richard Nixon was not impeached as he resigned before the Congress put his head on the chopping block. The below cut and paste is quite long, but I urge you to read it, especially if you did not live through the Watergate crisis. It is alarming to see how corrupt President Nixon really was, and how stark parallels between then and now are not being discussed at all. The articles of impeachment against Nixon were based on the following factual allegations:

ARTICLE 1

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

ARTICLE II

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.

He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

ARTICLE III

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

The Nixon stuff was quite serious. The Clinton impeachment was political as the Republicans went after him as soon as he took the oath of office in 1993, hitting paydirt five years later in the Monica Lewinski scandal. Anyone with a decent knowledge of American history knows that Clinton's crimes in the Monica scandal were nothing compared with presidential misconduct over the years.

What about Bush?

What's the case against Bush? Putting aside his general incompetence and delusional personality, a good summary is found here. The shenanigans of the Bush regime are too numerous to mention. Just go the library and browse through the books which have been published over the past few years to learn more about the pretext for the Iraq War, warrantless spying, torture, the creeping loss of constitutional rights and manifest incompetence. David Swanson writes:

For all the reasons Nixon was nearly impeached, George W. Bush could be impeached too. He has openly engaged in illegal, unconstitutional, warrantless spying, and -- while Congress has not yet used subpoenas -- Bush has obstructed its investigations, refused to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests, and broken a variety of laws in the course of exacting retribution against whistleblowers, producing false reports, and establishing a regime of secrecy of a sort that Nixon could only dream about.

Bush has lied to the public about the warrantless spying program at the National Security Agency (NSA), the war in Iraq, the kinds of warnings he was given before hurricane Katrina arrived, and numerous other issues. While Nixon made secret audio tapes in the White House which, when discovered, doubled as evidence, this time there is video -- of Bush being warned prior to Katrina and claiming he was not warned, of Bush assuring us he was not engaged in warrantless spying and brazenly asserting that he will continue to spy without warrants, of Bush warning us about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as well as Saddam's supposed ties to the 9/11 attacks and of Bush claiming he did no such thing, of Bush claiming the U.S. does not condone torture and of the torture victims.

Bush's administration has even bribed journalists and manufactured phony news stories at home as well as in Iraq in order to deceive the public. Congressman John Conyers has introduced bills to censure both the President and Vice President Cheney for their refusal to turn over information, while Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a bill to censure Bush for his illegal spying programs.

Swanson then summarizes the various crimes and misdemeanors over the past five years as set forth in various books focusing on impeachment. This is a long cut and paste, but, hey, nothing worthwhile ever came easy:

Every list of impeachable offenses includes tangential references to other impeachable offenses. The list seems inexhaustible, but here's a quick run-down of the main possible charges:

The illegal war in Iraq is at or near the top of everyone's list. Sometimes, the emphasis is on the illegality of an aggressive war; sometimes, on the fraud used to sell the war to Congress and the public; sometimes, on the absence of a proper Congressional declaration of war.

Lying to Congress is a felony. Lying to the public is an impeachable offense -- and one brought against Nixon. Initiating an aggressive war is the highest crime under treaties that are part of international and U.S. law. Launching a war without proper Congressional approval is a violation of the War Powers Act of 1973. Misusing government funds to launch a war is a separate crime, committed by Bush when he ordered troops moved to Iraq and began bombing raids prior to Congress's dubious authorization to use force.

On some lists are the various war crimes that have accompanied the war, including the targeting of civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, the use of antipersonnel weapons in densely settled urban areas, and the use of illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new version of napalm used in Mark 77 firebombs.

High on most lists are also unlawful detentions and torture. The arbitrary detention of Americans, of legal residents, and of non-Americans without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel is illegal under U.S. and international law, and unconstitutional as well. In case anyone doubted this fact, the Supreme Court recently ruled on it. The highest body in our judicial branch of government has essentially declared Bush a criminal, and yet Congress recently acted, through the Military Commissions Act of 2006, to provide the President with retroactive immunity for some of his acts in these areas.

Bush has authorized the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in some cases in death, and sought to evade responsibility by redefining acts commonly considered torture out of the category of torture. He has agreed to let suspects be kidnapped off the streets of cities in other countries, allowed prisoners to be hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross, shipped people under U.S. control to third nations or a network of secret U.S. prisons to be tortured. The Constitution, international treaties that are part of U.S. law, and other U.S. laws ban torture. When, in the McCain Amendment to a Department of Defense bill last January, Congress redundantly re-banned torture, the President signed the bill but added a signing statement explaining that he would not obey it.

On every impeachment list as well is the illegal National Security Agency spying to which Bush has publicly (and proudly) confessed, and which a federal court has ruled criminal. Yet, to this day, it goes on unchecked. Bush lied to the public and Congress about his illegal spying programs for years. Congress has passed bills cutting off funding for the programs, but Bush countermanded these with signing statements.

The spying, done without recourse to the secret FISA court set up in 1978 for exactly this purpose, is also in blatant violation of the FISA Act of 1978, of the Fourth Amendment, and -- according to Congressman John Conyers' report, George W. Bush versus the U.S. Constitution -- of the Stored Communications Act of 1986 and the Communications Act of 1934. Congressman Conyers also cites Bush for violating the National Security Act and for failing to keep all members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees "fully and currently informed" of intelligence activities, such as the warrantless surveillance programs.

On nearly every list of impeachable offenses is the President's failure to protect New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina. Over a period of years, the administration undermined the city's protection. In the days prior to the storm's arrival, Bush was warned about just what might happen. Yet prior to the storm -- and for days after it hit -- he did nothing; the unqualified cronies he had put in charge of the Federal Emergency Management Agency did nothing; and the National Guard members from Louisiana, Mississippi and other states of the southeast whom he had dispatched to Iraq could not be called upon to help. Thousands of Americans died preventable deaths and a city was ruined, not so much by a storm as by the non-response to it. Even now, people who lost their homes in the Katrina debacle are being told there are no funds available to help them.

The Constitution requires that the President "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Former Congresswoman and Judiciary Committee Member Elizabeth Holtzman in her new book, The Impeachment of George W. Bush, argues that Bush's neglect of New Orleans (and other presidential duties) violated this responsibility and so constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. Holtzman puts into this category as well the administration's failure to provide U.S. troops in Iraq with proper body armor, and the failure of the President and his top officials to plan for the occupation of Iraq.

In their book, The Case for Impeachment, Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky make a similar argument about Bush's failure to attempt to prevent the attacks of September 11, 2001 and his obstruction of investigations into those crimes (as do Dennis Loo and Peter Phillips in their book Impeach the President).

The same two books, along with the Bush Crimes Commission in its "verdict," also suggest that, by denying the existence of, enacting policies that increase, and failing to work to decrease global warming, Bush has committed perhaps the most serious offense possible -- in the words of Loo and Phillips, "placing oil-industry profits over the long-term survival of the human race and the viability of the planet."

The Bush Crimes Commission finds the President's imposition of abstinence-only policies on countries being ravaged by AIDS to be a serious crime against humanity. Loo and Phillips charge Bush with "violating the constitutional principle of separation of church and state through the interlinking of theocratic ideologies in the decision-making process of the U.S. government."

Three of the recent books on impeachment include as an impeachable offense Bush's use of signing statements to announce his refusal to obey hundreds of laws passed by Congress. The American Bar Association has found the practice unconstitutional. It is, in fact, an open threat to the rule of law.

An official censure by Congress would do nothing to compel the President to obey laws he chooses not to obey. Impeachment would do nothing. Only impeachment followed by removal from office will cure this cancer on the American political system. The current situation is exactly what the authors of the Constitution had in mind when they made impeachment and removal from office the means of protection against tyranny.

Holtzman includes in her roster of impeachable offenses the selective and misleading leaking of classified information, especially on supposed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (which Bush himself was directly involved in) to advance a dishonest case for war. Lindorff and Olshansky also include the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.

Conyers cites violations of the following related laws: 1) Federal requirements concerning the leaking and misuse of intelligence, including failing to enforce an executive order that requires the disciplining of those who leak classified information, whether intentionally or not; 2) Federal laws forbidding retaliation against whistle-blowers of various sorts, an example being the demotion of Bunnatine Greenhouse, the chief contracting officer at the Army Corps of Engineers, who exposed secret, no-bid contracts awarded to Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton; 3) Federal regulations and ethical requirements governing conflicts of interest, including the briefing of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on an FBI investigation of possible misconduct by Karl Rove, even though Mr. Rove had previously received nearly $750,000 in fees for political work on Mr. Ashcroft's campaigns.

Loo and Phillips -- rightly I think -- bring up a number of offenses not found on most lists, including:

*"Usurping the American people's right to know the truth about governmental actions through the systematic use of propaganda and disinformation";

*"Overthrowing Haiti's democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and installing a highly repressive regime" in his place;

*Hiding government decisions from public and congressional view "by a willful subversion of the Freedom of Information Act."

I would add one item not yet found on anybody's list: the passage by Congress of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that retroactively and unconstitutionally legalizes various Bush administration acts involving torture and illegal detention, and the passage of other bills doing the same on a number of the crimes listed above. Impeachment is not a criminal process. Legalizing impeachable offenses does not make them less impeachable. But proposing and lobbying to legalize illegal impeachable offenses are themselves additional impeachable offenses.

Global warming inaction

Another crime in the Bush arsenal is global warming. It's not illegal to mortgage our future. Nor is it against the law or contrary to constitutional values to let the environment go to hell. But we know what history would say about our failure to deal with global warming at a time when decisive action would still garner results. Imagine how historians would judge Abraham Lincoln for allowing the southern states to secede from the union. Or if Frankin Delano Roosevelt did not declare war against Japan after Pearl Harbor. Historians would wonder why these presidents were not impeached. It's fair to say that Bush could have been impeached if he did not go to war against Afghanistan after September 11.

The news about global warming is growing more dour all the time. There is no greater threat to our survival. Only the loonies think global warming is not a problem. And our grandchildren are going to wonder why we stood by and did nothing. According to Reuters,

Failing to fight global warming now will cost trillions of dollars by the end of the century even without counting biodiversity loss or unpredictable events like the Gulf Stream shutting down, a study said on Friday.

But acting now will avoid some of the massive damage and cost relatively little, said the study commissioned by Friends of the Earth from the Global Development and Environment Institute of Tufts University in the United States.

"The climate system has enormous momentum, as does the economic system," said co-author Frank Ackerman. "We have to start turning off greenhouse gas emissions now in order to avoid catastrophe in decades to come."

The study said the cost of inaction by governments and individuals could hit 11 trillion pounds a year by 2100, or six to eight percent of global economic output then.

Most scientists now agree average temperatures will rise by between two and six degrees Celsius by the end of the century, driven by so-called greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels for power and transport.

Already at two degrees they predict a massive upsurge in species loss and extreme weather events like storms, droughts and floods, threatening millions of lives. Polar icecaps will melt, raising sea levels by several metres.

Beyond that, the world enters into the unknown with the possible shutdown of the life-giving Gulf Stream and possibly catastrophic runaway change due to so-called climate feedback.

By contrast, spending just 1.6 trillion pounds a year now to limit temperature rises to two degrees could avoid annual economic damage of around 6.4 trillion pounds, the Tufts report said.

Bush's adamant refusal to do anything constructive about global warming is far, far worse than Bill Clinton lying under oath about oral sex. It's also worse than Richard Nixon's Watergate cover-up. A real Congress would tell Bush: Do something now about climate change or you can forget about serving out the rest of your term.

The future

Impeachment cannot happen as long as the Republicans control Congress. That may change, particularly in the wake of the Mark Foley sex scandal. The public is fed up with a political party wwhich protects its own even in the face of Congressman Foley's sexual overtures to teenage government interns. Bush's popularity is also sinking again. If the Democrats take control of Congress and do not take impeachment seriously, then they do not deserve to win. If they do take impeachment seriously and go after Bush, no one except the most rabid partisans will say it was a frivolous exercise. These were the same people who impeached President Clinton for lying under oath about oral sex. Aren't lies about war and peace more important?