My essay from last year, in full:
Rep. Porter Goss (Republican-FL), Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee in 2001, to Tim Russert of NBC News at 11:37am ET on September 11, 2001:We. Will. Respond.
The question is against whom. And we want to make absolutely sure when we're dealing with asymmetrical warfare such as this, where we're dealing with innocent people, by and large, who are victims of this, that we respond appropriately and not provoke other incidents that are unwarranted in the world, but get the people who actually caused this to happen.
Yet here we are, six years later, with Osama bin Laden still free and roaming the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, while our men and women in uniform die fighting a war in a country that contained not one person - NOT ONE - "who actually caused this to happen" - and that has clearly provoked "unwarranted incidents" in the Middle East.
When the founding fathers wrote the impeachment clause of the Constitution, I have hunch that it was this exact scenario - or something pretty damn close to it - that they had in mind when they wrote of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Yet, the former Republican congress didn't have the cajones to stand up to the incompetent president; and the current Democratic congress doesn't want to ruffle political feathers by voting for impeachment, lest they lose their slight majorities in the 2008 elections.
To be fair, the Senate doesn't contain the 16+ additional Democratic senators it would take to get the 67 votes needed to convict Mr. Bush and remove him from office.
I say, do it anyway. Whether the Senate can convict or not, impeach the President anyway.
When endorsing Al Gore in 2000 I argued that George W. Bush was nowhere near ready for the presidency. His past failings (business and political) highlighted his inability to focus on issues and make the decisions necessary to keep America safe, secure, and solvent. (The man couldn't name the prime minister of India, for crying out loud.) And within months, President George W. Bush proved me right.
Presented in August of 2001 with a report titled "Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the United States," this president did nothing. He didn't gather his national security team, he didn't meet with his terrorist chief, he didn't ask the CIA and FBI to pool their resources and figure out what the report was all about. He. Did. Nothing.
And to date he has, essentially, still done nothing. Yes, we invaded Afghanistan pretty easily, driving out the Taliban government who supported bin Laden and his cronies. But we never got bin Laden. Instead, we went to Iraq (and for his incompetent job there, I believe the President should be arrested and tried for war crimes, but that is another argument for another day).
As a result of that horrendous detour, the Taliban is growing more powerful, al-Qaeda is as strong as at was before 9/11, and bin Laden is still roaming free. In fact, the current CIA chief argued in New York last week that he believes another major attack on the homeland is coming.
Yet, Bush remains in office.
Where is the outrage, people? Why aren't Americans clamoring for this President's head. That he still has his job six years later, despite failure after failure on the terrorist front, will confound me until my last breath.
Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt he is not. And the souls of the 3,000 victims of 9/11 deserve better.
My essay from last year, in full: