Obama's Frightening Presidential Actions Are a Result Of Our Failure to Impeach Bush

Remarks at the Rutherford Institute, June 16, 2010; Video of these remarks and the following Q&A posted at http://afterdowningstreet.org/rutherford

I want to save most of the time we have for your questions, so I'll be brief and I'll start with a couple of questions for you.  And then I want you to think of questions for me, because otherwise I'll just go on and on about what I want to talk about.

Who can tell me who said this and where they said it?

"I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation." -- President Barack Obama, asserting the illegal and unconstitutional power to make war, in a Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo, Norway.

What about this one -- who and where?

"There may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. . . .  As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. . . .  We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified."  -- President Barack Obama standing in front of the U.S. Constitution in the National Archives, a Constitution that reads "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended."

OK.  One more.  Who said this and where and when?

"The blessing is not that God has promised to remove all obstacles and dangers.  The blessing is that He is with us always."  --President Barack Obama in the Oval Office last night explaining how he'll stop the explosion that is pumping millions of gallons of oil into the ocean every day, and defend the separation of church and state.

Something is missing, I think, from the recent debate over whether Nancy Pelosi blames George W. Bush too much.  Pelosi chose not to impeach Bush.  Had she pursued impeachment, Bush would have been a better president as long as he remained in office, and his successor -- whether Barack Obama or someone else -- would have been far less dangerous than Obama is right now.

That Bush and Dick Cheney had reshaped the powers of the presidency was not exactly a secret.  In a December 31, 2007, editorial, the New York Times faulted Bush and Cheney for kidnapping innocent people, denying justice to prisoners, torturing, murdering, circumventing US and international law, spying in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and basing their actions on "imperial fantasies."  If the list of crimes had been smaller, such as robbing a liquor store and killing the clerk, the editorialists would have demanded prosecution.  In this case, on the contrary, they demanded the same thing that Pelosi demanded of us, that we sit back and hope the next president would be better.  But the next president was destined to enter office with the power to commit all the crimes listed above and many more, including the larger crimes of aggressive war to which the New York Times contributed so crucially.

We prosecute liquor store robbers when we can catch them, and we sometimes win convictions.  Other times, the robbers get away.  But we are certain that the effort, while far from perfect, deters some people from robbing liquor stores.  Had Pelosi attempted to impeach George W. Bush and failed, President Obama, or whoever was president now, would have had to operate under that deterrent.  And it is highly unlikely that Pelosi would have failed to win a majority in the House for impeachment, and it is unlikely that two-thirds of the Senate would not have convicted.  It is also unlikely that a serious move toward impeachment and trial would not have resulted in criminal prosecution.  I say this for several reasons.