Forcing the moment to its crisis

Many people around me seem to be voicing increasingly frequent and vitriolic frustration at the notion that we are stuck with George W. Bush as President for another 17 months. The calls for impeachment have intensified despite the lack of any hard evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that I can discern, not to mention the strong likelihood that impeachment would fail. And hell, someone even suggested that the military should relieve Bush of his command and arrest him for conduct unbecoming, though after a flurry of outrage and legal analysis over whether such a suggestion is prosecutable, he now claims it was all just Swiftian satire.

The sad reality that we all have to confront in our own ways is that there is no legal and constitutional way for us to get rid of either Bush or his failed war no matter how badly we all might want to. Let that sink in, have a good cry or throw plates or something to release your anger and frustration, and then get over it--because it's just not going to change.

Bush knows that he has sole control of US military strategy until his term is over in January 2009 and there's not much Constitutionally that the American people or Congress can do about it. And he is using that little Constitutional loophole to his great advantage (which is pretty ironic considering it's about the only time in 7 years that he has seen fit to actually care what the Constitution says.) But he knows that Congress won't move towards impeachment without concrete evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors and a good sense that they can get the votes to convict in the Senate. Ignoring the FISA wiretapping rules isn't enough. Making a presentation to Congress or to the UN that was a little selective in its military intelligence isn't enough. Authorizing firing of federal prosecutors isn't enough. This would require something major, and as far as I know we don't have it yet. Without a smoking gun and major legal violation, impeachment is off the table.

As for forcing Bush to pull out of Iraq, the Constitution gives authority over military strategy unequivocally to the President. Congress can cut military funding, but the impact would probably be too delayed to force the President into a pullout before January 2009 anyhow. And in addition, such action would be politically disastrous and could be legitimately criticized for increasing the risk to American soldiers but depriving them of necessary resources in the interim.

Sandy Levinson over at Balkinization puts this looming political and constitutional crisis in harsh perspective, but ultimately reaches the same conclusion that I unfortunately have: there is not much that can be done.

It might seem like a bitter pill to swallow that the 70%+ of us who are opposed to this war and think it should be over now simply cannot do anything to stop it. And I agree that it is frustrating as hell to watch people die when they simply do not have to. But as those who fought unsuccessfully against the war in Vietnam through three different Presidents will tell you, the hands of the people and their representatives in Congress are pretty well tied in this situation. For all of my reverence of the Constitution, the one area in which it leaves us a little lacking is in the ability to reign in a crazy intractable President hell bent on an unpopular military action.

I suppose this is why we have presidential term limits. We'll have to thank the bright folks back in the 40's and 50's for that gift.