In Part 1, I reached the conclusion that Bush may actually want to be impeached over domestic surveillance. Here’s why.Because of all the pending corruption scandals that combine to suggest deeper, more sinister connections (some good speculation here), recent events signal to me that the strategic focus is no longer on gaining ultimate political power, but on getting away with the crimes. How else can one explain the stubborn, defiant tone of Bush’s response to Congress in the face of near unanimous opinion that he broke the law by failing to get FISA warrants. I think Bush wants to fight an impeachment battle over illegal wiretaps because there are much worse things he could be impeached for if the Democrats do end up regaining control of Congress.
My guess is that wiretapping is to the other crimes that have been committed, like Scooter Libby is to the rest of the White House Iraq Group – the lighting rod set up as a last ditch effort to avoid getting struck during the storm! In fact, given the ease with which Bush could have gotten the FISA warrants, he may have chosen not to do so merely to give himself a “defendable crime” that he could get impeached for if the rest of the scam looked like it was going to break. This would give the approaching attack dogs some raw meat, without having to ever confess anything, in the hope that they would be satisfied with any impeachment. Like putting away Al Capone for tax evasion, only without the “putting away” part!
An impeachment battle over wiretaps alone would give Bush the ability to hold firm to the sanctimonious position that he was only conducting domestic wiretaps to protect us because we are at war. An impeachment might be politically damaging, and it would probably consume much of his remaining presidency, but it might also head off any serious investigations into anything deeper. It would also focus the discussion on something he feels he can argue while keeping his base, maybe even long enough to keep a majority in Congress through 2006. After that, it’s merely running out the clock.
He could insist the impeachment was just Democratic payback for Clinton (even though some irresponsible Republicans got sucked into it), and fight it to the end by sticking to his argument like the kid who hits his younger brother and insists he is being framed by fake tears. Ultimately, the issue is bound to end in an ambiguous decision, like Clinton’s impeachment, where his detractors will still hate him, his supporters will still think of him as a hero, and he gets to end up talking about fighting the good fight. But most importantly, he’ll get away with the loot!
OK, I’m removing my tin foil hat now!
I'm sorry. I'm intrigued, but I don't buy it. They have used political scandal to cover financial scandal, but I just don't see Bush, the egomaniacal "I am the State" Bush, throwing himself on a grenade.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't doubt that there is some interesting motivations of the leakers who dripped this story early to keep it in the press, but I just can't see Bush as that guy.
But I like the idea. And, I wouldn't put it past Rove to go down at a politically convenient time if he thought he was going down anyhow.
Mike
I think this whole idea is way too clever for Bush. He could never come up with a plan like that. It might all happen just as you say, but it sure wouldn't be because he figured out how to make it so. None of these White House cronies could plan anything with so much plotting. That is what is most frustrating about them. They are so blatant about their lies and crimes. Yet they seem to be getting away with it.
ReplyDelete