Bloodless Coup

One wonders why this guy is only saying this on the record now. And of course this is a great, succinct quotation one can point to and remember quickly - but of course the basic point has been known for years to anyone who's followed Rumsfeld's Pentagon.

Of course I also have a bit of a problem with Baltar's old post. There were already loads of reason to want to get rid of Rummy - so what miss the glaring opportunity of Abu Ghraib? Plus I think opinion of the US wouldn't have plummeted to the same degree if we'd actually shown some shame and demanded some accountability at the time - and again, firing Rumsfeld would have been a great symbol on that front.

Though of course I might also just be disagreeing with Baltar's (then) proposal. It's hard for me to see what dragging Rummy before Congress would accomplish. True, maybe at that point we didn't know the degree to which he's mishandled the Pentagon, and maybe hearings would have uncovered that earlier. But my faith in congressional hearings is pretty limited (or maybe I'm still depressed from the recent sideshows that were the Roberts and Alito nomination hearings).

Well, I'd certainly like to hear more from Baltar about the whole Congress thing. At the time I didn't agree with him about holding Rumsfeld accountable for Abu Ghraib. I thought we should. Now, however, I think I would come down on on the side of "responsibility is wider than just Rummy, and holding only Rummy responsible is going to let others off the hook. Others that need to be on the hook. Big time.

I don't see how holding Rummy responsible necessarily lets those others off the hook.

I do think he's a great campaign issue for the Democrats.

My point then, and it still stands, is that only Congress has the power to curb the executive, and only Congress (through hearings) has the ability to display the failures of the executive (the press doesn't have subpoena power). I still don't think Rumsfeld is directly responsible for Abu Ghirab, though I think he should have resigned (it was on his watch, and his attitudes and policy contributed to the underlying atmosphere that led to those specific abuses), but hearings are the only way (ineffective as they are) to change the executive (other than elections).

It doesn't necessarily let others off the hook. However it could, if additional attention on others failed to materialize.

Congress is the only check on the executive? Rehnquist is likely spinning in his grave at the mention of the thought. :)

I certainly agree that subpoena power is hugely important - but given the public's contempt for Congress, Congress's own ability to mishandle those few investigations they choose to actually carry out, and the fact that these days investigatory committees tend to continually issue multiple (sometimes quite divergent) reports ... well, I don't see them or their hearings being much of a check on the executive. Maybe that will change in future Congresses, but for now ...

And it's not like Congress can remove Rumsfeld from office. Can they?

I wonder whether Rumsfeld is subject to impeachment . . .

Removal from office.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

U.S. Const. art. II s 4.

you know, just saying . . .

I'll grant all of those weaknesses you point with respect to Congress. That doesn't change the fact that only Congress can compell testimony, and only Congress can find someone in contempt. The press can only point (usually until some sort of Congressional investigation gets started...), little else. Congress is disfunctional, but we have not other branch of government (nor organization outside government) with the inherent power to check the Executive. Congress, for the past six years, has failed to use that power. That doesn't change their fundamental power to involve themselves, if they so choose.

True enough - I guess the last 6 years have just made me hopelessly cynical about Congress actually compeling testimony, and then the White House actually being remotely honest in replying.

Moon - ummm - yeah. But doesn't that imply that Rummy would have to be found guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in order to remove him from office? Is there something specific that could be pinned on him in that way? I mean simply being dangerouly incompetent and focused on the wrong things wouldn't seem to be enough ...

If there is something that a case could be made on ... "Impeach Rumsfeld" would be a hugely compelling matra for the Dems. It keeps Iraq and Republican incompetence at the front of people's minds, without appearing "partisan" in the way that trying to take down the party leader (Bush) would appear.

Armand - I'm sure we could work something up. Think we could pin a few violations of the Geneva Convention on him?

Theoretically, that would seem to be quite possible, sure. Mark Kleiman's site has had a few good posts on that lately. Well, actually they are more about Bush than about Rumsfeld. But that just takes us back to the "to what degee is Rummy the problem" issue (and of course doesn't delve into how unlikely it is that the Congress would charge the Secretary of Defense with such a thing.

I guess today's thread is just making me notice that I've become even more cynical about Congress, and about Congress's ability to keep a check on the executive branch, than I'd realized.

I don't think it's cynicism, I think it's realism. They've done nothing but cheerlead, really.

And yes, the larger point is taken. Though really, if we're going to impeach Rumsfeld, why not Bush?

I agree: realism and cynicism (why wouldn't you be cynical? What has Congress done of any independent consequence in the last six years).

That being said, if not Congress, who? The voters don't get a direct shot at the White House for two more years. The press can make noise, but they have no power other than noise. The Courts have stemmed executive power, but they can only say "no" to the executive; they can't actually turn course. Only Congress has that authority.

Honestly, I blame Congress more for the mess we're in than Bush. They need to step up and do something (anything). I realize that I'm hoping against hope, but who else is there?