On McGovern’s Article About Bush’s Impeachment

George McGovern's article can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404308_2.html

First of all, I would like to say that I never wanted to be an apologist for the Bush regime. I don’t think Bush is a particularly good president, and I disagree with many of the actions he has taken since being in office. However, I find that I am often thrust into this position by the obstinate exaggeration I find in attacks against him.

George McGovern recently wrote an article called, “Why I Believe Bush Must Go.” The article argues for Bush’s impeachment based on a number of examples of alleged contempt for the law on the part of our president. Mcovern cites Bush’s “questionable” election, the Iraq war, Guantanamo Bay, the most recent report on Iran’s nuclear development programs, the fact that Bush has less international support than did his father, and Bush’s alleged violation of FISA law.

McGovern opens his article by suggestion that Bush’s claim to the presidency is illegitimate. The primary argument against the legitimacy of the 2000 elections is the fact that Gore won the popular vote, but did not win the Electoral College. The 2000 elections were the third time in U.S. history that this phenomenon has occurred. Although the election may seem unfair to Bush’s opponents, it was nevertheless legal. McGovern argues that the election was so “questionable” that it warranted a congressional investigation. Yet Congress certified the result of the electoral vote.

McGovern has a number of arguments about why Bush’s handling of the Iraq war was illegal. While I think one would be hard-pressed to argue that Bush did not seriously bungle the occupation of Iraq, I think it would be equally difficult to legitimately argue that he acted illegally. McGovern’s first argument is that Bush never procured a declaration of war from Congress. True, Congress never issued an official declaration of war. But in October 2002, Congress passed the Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, which authorized the military to use the strategy that it in fact used in Iraq. Thus, what become known as the “Iraq War” was indeed sanctioned by Congress. Congress has approved the occupation or Iraq insofar as Congress holds the power of the purse and has had to approve budgetary allocations for the effort.

McGovern’s second argument is one that, although it was long ago discredited, continues to pop up amongst those who spend their time demonizing the administration. He claims that Bush “repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public” about Hussein’s possession of nuclear weapons. Most importantly, Bush did not ‘lie to’ or ‘deceive’ anyone; rather, he was acting on the basis of the best and most credible intelligence that was available to him. Even if no weapons of mass destruction had been found after the 2003 invasion, the distinction between lying and being mistaken remains an important one. But the fact of the matter is, weapons were found in Iraq after the invasion. Although no evidence of an ongoing program was found, hundreds of WMDs that Hussein had supposedly destroyed were found in Iraq.*

McGovern also harps on the massive number of deaths that the Iraqi population has sustained since the U.S. invasion. The carnage that has occurred in Iraq is tragic and completely unjustifiable. Yet the high death toll is not solely Bush’s fault. McGovern cites over 600,000 Iraqi deaths. Yet the study he cites includes both violent and non-violent deaths. That means that his figure includes those killed by coalition forces, those killed by Iraqi insurgency and those killed by general increased violence and lawlessness, decreased standards of healthcare, etc. Deaths of Iraqis, while tragic, do not constitute illegal behavior on the part of the President. I personally don’t think that we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, but impeaching the President will do nothing to stem the incredible violence in Iraq. (Troop surges apparently will).

Finally, McGovern calls the argument that the Iraqi government was connected with the terrorists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks a “blatant lie.” The connection was certainly exaggerated by the administration, but it was not a blatant lie. Hussein’s connection to various terrorist groups is well documented and, in the case of Palestinian suicide bombers, very public knowledge. Hussein’s connection to terrorism and even to some of the men involved in the 9/11 attacks is documented in Stephen Hayes’ book, The Connection.**

McGovern laments the fact that “habeus corpus” was not extended to the prisoner’s in Guantanamo Bay. He seems to have forgotten that the right of habeus corpus as found in the Constitution does not apply to prisoners of war who are not even U.S. citizens. There have been a number of Supreme Court cases on Guantanamo Bay, and these cases, not impeachment, are necessary to ensure legality.

McGovern cites Bush’s recent behavior with regards to the report stating that Iran has stopped “weaponizing.” He claims that Bush received the report in August and has since then been lying to the American public. But to say that Iran still has a nuclear program and is capable of creating nuclear weapons is not a lie. What Iran has stopped doing, that is, weaponizing, is the easy part. The enrichment of uranium is the hard part, and Iran still refuses to stop enriching. Many countries do not enrich their own uranium, but receive enriched uranium from other, less dangerous countries. Because Iran enriches its own uranium, and has the capacity to enrich it to be weapons-grade, it could begin the weaponizing process at any time and have nuclear weapons within a negligible amount of time.

McGovern compares the international support that the first Bush had during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait with the lack of international support for the second Bush. Today, the international community won’t even support a resolution to intervene in Darfur. Intervention in Darfur is at least as obviously necessary as was the intervention expelling Iraq from Kuwait. So we must question the necessity of support from an international community so crippled that it cannot even agree to intervene to put an end to genocide.

Finally, McGovern ends with what is perhaps the most popular argument for Bush’s impeachment, his alleged violation of FISA law. Opponents of the regime, including McGovern, claim that Bush’s order for extensive wiretapping violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Yet five FISA judges testified before Congress that Bush’s actions did not, in fact, violate any law.

What is most disturbing about McGovern’s article is not his negligent bending of facts, but his portrayal of the Bush administration as something approaching Orwellian standards. McGovern and others repeatedly use the phrase, “climate of fear” and McGovern describes the U.S. situation as “a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness.” This language represents a monstrous exaggeration. This tendency to exaggerate is prevalent in arguments against the current administration from all sources. A friend of mine with whom I was recently having a political debate described his life as “inhumanely degraded by the insidious grip of a fear mongering government.” Let’s be quite clear, this is a kid who attends a top university and has a very comfortable life. The situation being described here is Burma, is Sudan, is Stalin’s Russia. It is not the United States. Whatever the U.S.’ flaws, our government has not yet become a brutal dictatorship. To suggest that it has shows astounding ingratitude. I’m not sure if this point of view is a product of ignorance or of boredom. Have we become so bored with our own comfortable democracy that we need to find excitement by deluding ourselves into thinking we live in the world of Orwell’s 1984?


*http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
**Hayes’ articles on the subject can be found here: http://www.husseinandterror.com/hayes.htm