Amid scandals of government spying on US citizens, Bush faces the challenge to open 2006 on a cleaner wicket, writes Mohamed Hakki The firestorm that was started by President Bush on 17 December when he admitted that he ordered the surveillance of the phone calls and emails of US citizens has not yet abated. At this time every year, Senators and House Representatives pack their bags and leave town to spend the holiday recess in their constituencies. Usually, political quiet descends upon Washington. Not this time. Everybody is awaiting the return of Congress and changes it may author in the new year. Before the holiday began, a judge on the court set up to review administration requests for surveillance operations resigned in protest. The presiding judge of the same secret court that oversees government surveillance is said to be arranging a classified briefing for fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying programme. Several members of the court said they needed to know how the administration deems spying on US citizens without court authorisation legal. Meanwhile, President Bush's claim that as president he has a legal authority to spy on US citizens caused the biggest rift in, and challenge to, his administration so far. The rightwing Wall Street Journal, usually known to be loyal to Bush, admitted that this claim that Bush is acting within his rights has widened ideological gaps within the Republican Party. On the one hand, those loyal to Bush "circled the wagons," aggressively defending his spying programme. On the other hand, several leading members of Congress on both sides of the aisle expressed outrage. The Wall Street Journal said, "The surveillance furore, at least among some conservatives, also has heightened worries that the party is straying from many of its core principles the longer it remains in control of both the White House and Congress." John Utley, a life-long conservative Republican cheered four brave senators, Chuck Hagel, Larry Craig, Lisa Murkowski and John Sununu, for their courage in opposing this dangerous turn of events. He said: "Now Republican leaders are laying the grounds for a police state because of a few Muslim fanatics who mainly just tell us to get out of their countries. Today's Republicans rule, and most (even the mighty Heritage Foundation) are all too ready to abandon basic freedoms, in particular the fourth amendment. Conservatives who argue that the government is too incompetent to run a nursery school now argue that major parts of the world can be entrusted with almost totalitarian police powers. So Quakers are put on secret Pentagon lists of potential terrorists while the Republican establishment now supports Bush's claims to almost dictatorial powers." The battle lines were drawn before the Congressional recess. The Bush administration contends that the president's powers as commander-in-chief during wartime puts him above the law. Ray McGovern writing for his internet site, www.anti-war.comwww.anti-war.comdisagrees. He writes: "The question is whether Congress and the courts will acquiesce in this usurpation of their powers, or whether there are still enough men and women in those branches of government determined to honour their oath to defend the constitution of the United States, 'from all enemies, foreign and domestic'." A number of legal authorities agree with the president's critics. They point out that the fourth amendment to the constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. They also note that the law establishing the court authorised to issue surveillance warrants also permitted the president to act first and seek court authority later. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell agreed with those critics this past Sunday. He said: "It would not have been that hard for the president to obtain warrants for eavesdropping on domestic telephone and internet activity." The question on everyone's mind is: can this storm seriously threaten Bush's position? Some people are openly talking about impeachment. The first to do so publicly was John Dean, former Nixon White House counsel, who called Bush "the first president to admit to an impeachable offence". The next day Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, contacted four presidential scholars about impeachment. While Boxer has not made public any of the responses yet, other political scholars have weighed in. "The American public has to understand that a crime has been committed, a serious crime," Chris Pyle, professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College, and an expert on government surveillance of civilians, told Salon magazine. "Looking at this controversy objectively, you inevitably end up with a question of impeachment," opined Jonathan Turley, professor of law at George Washington University. On 18 December, Representative John Conyers, Democrat of Michigan, the highest ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, released a 250-page report detailing Bush's misconduct on his Web site, calling for the creation of a select committee to investigate "those offences which appear to rise to the level of impeachment". Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, said in a radio interview that he would support impeaching Bush. "If there is a move to impeach the president, I will sign that bill of impeachment," he said. Assessing the controversy, Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter wrote on 19 December, "This will play out eventually in Congressional committees and the United States Supreme Court." Most people, however, think it exceedingly unlikely that Bush will be impeached, though impeachment has become a topic of considered discussion among many constitutional scholars, former intelligence officers, and a few politicians. So, how can Bush make a clean break, or a new start in 2006? Most people do not realise that Bush's popularity jumped up a few notches in 2005 because he got rid of some of the most sinister neo-cons in his administration -- men like Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz. There are already whispers in Washington that if Bush wants to save the rest of his presidency he should get rid of Dick Cheney, who represents all the negative aspects of the administration in the eyes of many. The scenario they consider is this: if Bush's instincts are still sound, he can see that Cheney is the one most after himself fuelling the "hate Bush" syndrome. He can simply ask him to retire gracefully, "for health reasons" and appoint someone else, like Senator John McCain, in his place. Those who advocate this route say, "It is doable, it is constitutional, and his numbers would skyrocket immediately." Keeping Cheney, who is considered by many to be a "commissar" in the mould of Laverenti Beria, will ensure a slide in popularity from now to the end of Bush's term. By getting rid of him, Bush has everything to gain and little to lose. As far as Karl Rove is concerned, Bush can leave Rove to the special prosecutor, who will take care of him. Bush has already seen that listening to the people and deciding to downsize US troop numbers in Iraq effected an upswing in his poll numbers. He should have the guts to ease Cheney out before 2006 becomes the repeat of 2005. Keeping Cheney around will augur negatively on the rest of his term because of torture and now domestic spying, each of which has been supported, if not instigated, and definitely identified with Cheney. Who knows, maybe if God loves Bush he will guide him to do that?
