Slowing Down on the Downing Street Memo

"Impeach him? Lady, we can't even afford to get you an extra microphone! Baby Steps."
                                -Jon Stewart

I don't know if you guys caught last night's Daily Show, but the above quote was taken from the end of a segment they did on Congressman Conyer's hearings this past week on the Downing Street Memo.  It mostly poked fun at them and was largely critical.

If The Daily Show is making fun of you, it is time to rethink things.

As I've mentioned before, I'm a member of the Big Brass Alliance, a coalition of bloggers which is attempting to bring greater awareness to the Downing Street Memo, and the implications it makes about the build-up to the war in Iraq.  I'm a member of this alliance because I believe the memo, which has been largely ignored by the media until recently (and even at that, it is woefully under-reported for my taste), is the best chance that we have had, to date, to really investigate, in an official manner, just how this Administration got us into Iraq.

And that's it.

There seems to be many who are the opinion that this investigation is for the sole purpose of starting the wheels in motion to bring impeachment proceedings against the President. I'm not one of those people.  It isn't that I, if it is proved that the President fixed intelligence and lied to us about information that he knew to be false so that he could go to war in Iraq, don't believe that those are impeachable offenses, it's just that it seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.  If our motivation is purposed solely so that we can impeach the President, then we are simply wrong.

I, for one, believe that we are setting a dangerous precedent if no President can get through two terms without the threat of impeachment hanging over his (or her) head, and if we, as the Democratic Party are moving forward to try to "get one back" for what the Republicans did in the 90's, then are doing so at our own folly.

The importance of the Downing Street Memo isn't in if it proves anything beyond a shadow of a doubt --even I admit that it isn't a smoking gun, in of itself -- but that it is official enough, and suggestive enough to raise troubling questions, which allow us an opportunity to find out the truth about Iraq.

Which should be our end goal.  We should be using this opportunity, for the sake of the soldiers who are fighting and dying in Iraq, for the sake of the people who died on 9/11, and for the sake of future generations, to seek out the truth, so that history is recorded accurately, right now, and not glossed over because of the Republican noise machine and the general apathy of the media and the public.  It is important that we find out if the intelligence presented to the President really was actionable and, to the best of their knowledge, accurate.  It is important that we find out if Tony Blair really had to talk the President into going into Afghanistan first, because the international community wouldn't stomach going into Iraq before the home of the Taliban, who was harboring Bin Ladin. 

And, if in the course of investigation, we find reasonable evidence to pursue impeachment, then all the better, but that shouldn't be our goal.  But, the fact is, most people don't believe that is our goal, and, for most of us, it probably isn't.

Comments

[Shakespeare's Sister]

You're spot on. Impeachment isn't the goal of the BBA; it's always been a formal inquiry, which is likely the only way to discern that truth we all seek.

I was challenged the other day about supporting the troops, and I responded that part of my support for them is my passion in finding out why they were sent into harm's way. I respect them for the job they do, a job which they should only have to do as a last resort. This seems not to be the case in the Iraq War. We owe them the truth, and likely an apology.

[Dylan]

Thanks, Shakes... It just occurred to me that perhaps the reason the Conyer's hearings have been so effectively dismissed as faux-impeachment hearings is because some of us and some of those directly involved in the hearings viewed them as impeachment hearings as well.

Thanks for stopping by. I'm very interested to know what some others think about this.

[PSoTD]

I agree, pursuit of the truth is the goal, not any kind of partisan advantage. Well written.

[Dylan]

Thanks, PSoTD, and thanks for the link.

[Charley]

The Conyers "forum" was overtly and expressly for the purpose of determining whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant a resolution of inquiry into whether Bush misled the Congress and violated Federal law in order to launch the war on Iraq. If he did, those are most definitely impeachable offenses under the Constitution. We should not be shy about declaring that ridding the country of this deceitful liar and his gang of anti-democratic bullys is our goal. Was the right shy about trumping up bogus charges against Clinton so they could get rid of him? No. What do we gain by being namby-pamby here. This administration and their sycophants in the Congress and the media are destroying this nation and we need to stop them one way or another.

[Dylan]

Charley,

I understand the sentiment of your comment, but disagree with a couple of things.

First of all, as I said in my post, going after Bush in the same manner that Republicans went after Clinton doesn't make us better. I'm all for the Democratic party showing spine and fight, but I don't want us to forsake our principals to do it. One of the things that is so unappealing about the Republican Party right now is the scuzzy, corruptness of it. By stooping to their level, even if we win, we lose.

And I agree with you that there were many involved in the Conyers' hearing that viewed it as a way to get the impeachment ball rolling, I just think that is the wrong tact, and really contributed to the idea that this was a political witchhunt (and a badly organized, laughable attempt at that). We get nothing by being laughed at by the entire country.

But, as you say, if the hearings can prove what we know about the way Bush took us to war, then it will be undeniable proof of impeachable actions... But doing it for that goal is wrong. There is a higher goal.

[Charley]

Dylan, it seems to me that when Democrats fail to fight the Republicans tooth and nail, they ARE forsaking their principles. The Republican Party is scuzzy and corrupt because they are liars. They are saying one thing and doing another. They have become masters at labeling their efforts as just the opposite of what they intend: "saving" Social Security by destroying it, "Clear Skies" that increase pollution, education "reform" that undermines public education, "Healthy Forests" by cutting them down, etc.

The Democrats have actual principles that some of them are brave enough to state openly. The problem the party has is with those compromisers who want to avoid offending anyone and keep apologizing for doing what they ought to be doing. If they had the courage to actually be liberal and proud of it, they would have a chance against the fascists.

If you recall, the Republicans engaged in a political witchhunt against Clinton culminating in a laughable attempt at impeachment that most of the country thought was ridiculous, and look where they are now. There are innumerable reasons why it is imperative for the security of this nation that the Bush, Cheney and the neo-confascist cabal in Washington be removed as rapidly as possible. The higher goal is the security and integrity of the United States of America. If the Republicans were unabashed about using a blowjob to get rid of a President who was merely mediocre, Democrats should not be embarrassed about using war crimes to rid us of the worst President in American history.

[Dylan]

It's funny, Charley, because we agree in principal, just not completely in form.

I don't think you can make the argument that the Republicans being in power has a direct correlation to the fact that they brough impeachment proceedings against Clinton that people now feel was overwhelmingly ridiculous. The Republicans are in power because Bush squeaked (or stole his way) in in 2000, and then masterfully frightened the nation into staying with him in 2004, using 9/11.

But, showing spine and having fight is different from wallowing in the mud with pigs. We can do the heavy lifting and get sweaty without getting dirty. For me, it is less important to impeach Bush than it is to find out the truth about what happened in the build-up to the war in Iraq. As you say, if that ends up proving what we all think it will prove, impeachment will be inevitable, but if we go into it with that goal in mind, not only will we be perceived as opportunistic political witchhunters and sore losers, but the possibility exists that we might actually be opportunistic witchhunters and sore losers.

I think language like yours, Charley, even though I understand it, gives the Right all the ammunition they need to fight us. If we are so livid at this man that we can't see past our hatred to doing what is right, then any action we bring against the President is easily defensible.

Thanks for engaging in this, Charley. I think it is an important conversation to be having.

[Charley]

If harsh language on the part of Democrats (aka "liberals") "gives the Right all the ammunition they need to fight us", how come the daily gushers of harsh language from the Right doesn't seem to give Democrats enough ammunition to fight the Right? It's not the language either side uses, it's the spineless weakness on the left vs. the bullying on the right. Democrats are like a junior high geek trying to stop the schoolyard bully by being civil and trying to reason with him and find ways to compromise.

Sure Bush absolutely stole the 2000 election and most likely stole the 2004 election, and the Democratic Party, in both cases, turned the other cheek. The Republicans have been systematically disenfranchising minority voters and only a handful of Democrats have protested, only to be silenced by their own "leadership".

We have the ridiculous travesty of Democrats in Congress still pretending they can achieve compromises and do what's best for the nation by cooperating with the radical Republican right, in spite of the fact that every time they've tried it, the Republicans have screwed them. If it's not now time to take the gloves off, it never will be. We have a group in near full control of the Federal government that does not believe in democracy, does not believe in the Bill of Rights (except #2), does not tolerate dissent and has sent thousands of our soldiers to be maimed or killed in a senseless war sold to Congress by deliberate lies. The reason they oppose any investigation into the circumstances preceding the Iraq war is simple - they know they lied, they know they're guilty and they want to get away with it.

Tiptoeing about to avoid negative comments from the likes of Santorum, Limbaugh, and O'Rielly is a sign of weakness. Having the guts to tell it like it is and make the Administration defend their lies is far preferable to apologizing for telling the truth.