Madam President?:
Government Report, Democrats, Accuse Bush of Violations for Missing Anti-terror Plans By Rob Hager
April 22, 2008

The Democratic Congress has declined to make the executive branch accountable for all the various laws that the Bush-Cheney gunslingers have broken since 2001 in the only way it can: impeachment. In the calculation of Democrat vote-counters, the inevitably unsuccessful impeachment proceedings might cost them the margin of victory in 2008. They fear voters may see impeachment as the kind of divisive and diversionary party politics that the Republicans displayed when the tables were reversed. Meanwhile we all have to take the chance that the incompetents in charge will do no more irreversible damage to the national security, economy and Constitution of the United States before adult supervision is restored to the executive branch.
But the frat-boy in chief has just been caught breaking one law that could soon have the most devastating consequences, and therefore should cause the Democrats to recalculate. After the crime of the century, the sheriff took his posse out to capture the killers, and ended up in the wrong town. Made a real mess of it, too. His cowardly town council suggested politely where the killer gang had actually holed up, asked the sheriff to make a plan to go shut down their hideout and break up the gang. They did not ask him to actually do it. He was still too busy making a mess of the other town. Just a plan is all they wanted, so they would not be criticized at the next election in case something happened.
There is new evidence that something might be about to happen, but W and uncle Dick never made that plan. Even after their own national security strategy, and the independent 9/11 Commission recommended a plan for dealing with the threat from the Afghanistan/Pakistan frontier, they did not do it. So Congress passed laws requiring them to do make a plan, and to submit their plan to Congress. Instead Bush and Cheney made excuses that they needed to eavesdrop on phone calls, torture, and otherwise rip up the Constitution or they couldn’t take care of the killer gang – but no mention of dealing with their handout. They figured if al Qaida came back to town, they could blame it on Congress for not going along with appointing them dictators. Making a plan to actually go out and do the job they took an oath to do – uphold the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws - would just get in their way. So they never made the comprehensive plan to deal with the insecurity of the Pakistan frontier that they were required to do by law. Until now the timid Congress has been played like a fiddle.
Then reality got in the way. The Director of National Intelligence, in the 2008 Annual Threat Assessment, concluded that,[/quote]

al Qaeda terrorists on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan now pose a preeminent threat to U.S. national security. … [A]l Qaeda is now using the Pakistani safe haven to put the last element necessary to launch another attack against America into place, … most likely … against political, economic, and infrastructure targets in America “designed to produce mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks, and/or fear among the population.” [/quote]
In light of these undisputed intelligence findings, the question about those missing plans to deal with this “likely” second attack on America originating from the Pakistan frontier by the same gang responsible for the first attack gets attention. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, announced that the security situation along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border “presents a clear and present danger to Afghanistan, to Pakistan and to the West in general, and to the United States in particular.” Congress’ Government Accountability Office quickly followed up with its April 17 report on the status of planning against this attack, and has confirmed that there is “[n]o comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals … as … mandated by congressional legislation.” It adds its recommendation that the Administration develop such a plan “using all elements of national power to combat the terrorist threat and close the associated safe haven in Pakistan’s [frontier] region.”
The Democratic Congress is now on formal notice of what they already knew: there is no comprehensive and coordinated plan to deal with the threat coming from the Pakistan frotier due to Bush and Cheney’s violations of law. It needs to respond to GAO’s findings. Meanwhile, on a parallel track, Congress has recently become aware of the consequences of the failure of the Bush/Cheney administration to form and implement a comprehensive plan next door in Afghanistan. A consensus has developed in the United Nations, NATO and various national security think tank reports that the effort in Afghanistan is failing in part due to the lack of a coherent, coordinated strategy and implementation. Senate Democrats, in their April 6, 2008 letter to the President, quote the “prominent nonpartisan report chaired by Marine General (Ret.) James L. Jones and former Undersecretary of State Thomas R. Pickering” on this subject which recommends a “clear and consistent comprehensive strategy” for Afghanistan. Formulating and applying comprehensive strategy is a function of leadership, which all know has been lacking in US Afghanistan policy.
The 46 Democrats wrote in their letter to President Bush:
the negligent policies of the last half-decade have permitted al-Qaeda and the Taliban to regenerate, and to pose a greater threat to the national security of the United States than at any point since September 11, 2001. In order to protect our homeland from attacks which may well be developing in the border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan at this very moment, we urge you to refocus the U.S. counter-terrorism strategy and our national security resources on this region and implement a comprehensive new strategy to keep America safe.
The lawyers who signed the letter know the legal import of the term “negligent,” and it is justified. Given the stakes, the term “reckless” would also be justified. Competent leadership by the biggest player in Afghanistan could have produced the joined-up international effort to rebuild the state that was expected and necessary to avoid the current disintegration there. Meanwhile on the other side of the frontier, in Pakistan, there is a lack of a comprehensive plan due to the same lack of leadership to get coordination within the US government from the various players that need to contribute for a comprehensive approach. What is called a “whole-of-government” approach is well known to be the only effective way to address the complex problems of weak and failing states that are the source of terrorism, and other threats.
If the US had a parliamentary system, the unsuccessful George W. Bush, the least popular president in modern history, would be long gone, and the country would already have started addressing the many serious problems he leaves in his wake. But Bush’s failings go beyond unpopularity to at least the “misdemeanor” charges of negligence and law breaking that is jeopardizing national security, and is also the test for impeachment. Impeachment is the American way to pass leadership when a President (and Vice President in this case) have worn out their welcome, and also broken the law. In this case the violation is flagrant. Their “negligent” failure of leadership in Afghanistan may, prior to indictment, be a matter for proof and judgment, but one in which most observers now share. But with respect to Pakistan the indictment has been investigated and officially delivered by GAO: the administration did not “report to Congress on its plans for assisting Pakistan in (1) combating terrorism and (2) closing terrorist safe havens, as required by both the 2004 and 2007 legislation.” This refusal to comply with such a significant legal requirement is both important and impeachable.
If al Qaida does strike again as a result of these multiple failures by the Bush administration, will the American people pause to assess responsibility for the failures after the fact, or will they once again fall for tough, though misguided, talk from the executive – and follow them down another wrong road? Would there be sufficient public space for rational discussion to assess responsibility, or will there be another wave of unthinking patriotism? Unless Democrats know the answers to these questions, they can no longer afford to leave the leadership vacuum unaddressed. Congress’ accusation of Bush’s negligence that poses a threat to national security and the GAO’s allegation of administration recidivism in failing to take the legally required steps to defend the country against its “preeminent threat” call for a remedy that only Congress can administer. Some stiffer response is required than just a letter to a puerile and unreflective President known for not changing his mind no matter how reviled he is by the American public.
The Threat Assessment, the GAO report, and the new consensus on Afghanistan should all cause the Democrats to revise their political calculation about impeachment. The only available response is the immediate impeachment of the two executives for their failure to execute. If the al Qaida attack does come, all expectations are that it would considerably exceed the devastation of their last attack. The Democrats would be in a far better position if they were in the process of removing, or had already removed, the president and vice president for their failure to competently execute those laws Congress enacted to prevent it. The responsibility for failure needs to be alleged in advance, when there is time to do something about it, not after the fact when it will look like typical finger pointing on a subject too profound for finger pointing.
The administration’s unlawful and negligent failure to defend the country is the wedge issue behind which lie a litany of impeachable offenses currently seeking a forum. It would not only be good preemptive politics to initiate impeachment proceedings immediately; it might also be essential for the nation’s security if the Senate could act quickly. If Congress can finally take responsibility for a floundering government, instead of waiting for voters to do the job, next in line of succession to set things aright would be the highest ranking Democrat: Nancy Pelosi.