One of the most common themes we are now asked to accept, as part of the hagiography surrounding the death of Gerald Ford, is that Ford ended our "long national nightmare" by pardoning Richard Nixon over his crimes in "Watergate" and that such an act remains a positive part of his legacy. In the debate over whether the pardon should have been granted, the focus has typically been on the dynamic at the time and what would be gained by putting the disgraced president and the nation through a criminal proceeding.
Here's another way of seeing it: by pardoning Nixon, Ford actually prolonged our national nightmare and, along with others, paved our nation's march forward that has culminated in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the Iraq War. We can only heal our nation now with the impeachment and trial of the current president and vice president. Richard Nixon broke the law.
Each of the three Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee in July 1974, ended with this sentence: "In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States."
Contrary to his trust as President. Subversive of constitutional government. Great prejudice to the cause of law and justice. Manifest injury to the people of the United States.
Not to mention illegal conduct of the war in Cambodia. One of the two articles of impeachment that was rejected by the House Judiciary Committee was Article V that charged Nixon with violating his oath as Commander in Chief when he "authorized, ordered, and ratified the concealment from the Congress of false and misleading statements concerning the existence, scope and nature of American bombing operations in Cambodia in derogation of the power of the Congress to declare war, to make appropriations and to raise and support armies, and by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office."
Doesn't this all sound familiar?
Nixon escaped trial and conviction by resigning from office. But, Ford's pardon, then, left Nixon unaccountable for the crimes he committed against the people of our country, and the conduct of an illegal war against the people of Cambodia. I would venture to guess that an actual trial in a court outside the Congress would have spread broadly beyond the approved Articles of Impeachment and incorporated the illegal war that Nixon (and his sidekick in crime, Henry Kissinger) conducted without the consent of the peoples' elected representatives.
We needed a trial of Richard Nixon so that the people could clearly see the abuse of power. We needed a trial because the people needed to witness, in excruciating detail, the abuse of power that went far beyond a political break-in and cover-up. Nixon's abuse of power reverberated around the globe, particularly in illustrating how our country too often treats nations who don't particularly agree with our national global aims or do not want to heel to our "strategic" interests. The trial and conviction of Nixon in a court of law might have made quite clear to the nation how our country's leader behave in the name of the people and also sent a message to the world that our democracy means something because we hold lawbreakers accountable, no matter who they are.
Gerald Ford may have been a regular guy. He may have been a really nice guy. I can't tell you that because I never met him. But, respecting the personal grief felt by his family at his passing, we shouldn't obscure the truth that he did damage to the rule of law--damage that we are still paying for.
Which brings us to our current situation. I think it is a fair argument to make that had Nixon been convicted and served a prison term--as he should have--the Iraq war might never have happened--and hundreds of thousands of people would not have died, we would not have squandered as much as $2 trillion on an insane war and we would not have opened up a huge rift in our relations around the world. Is it not likely and plausible that, with the precedent of a Nixon conviction and imprisonment very much branded in the consciousness of our elected leaders, the current president and vice president (particularly the latter who worked in the Ford presidency) might have paused for a moment, in their improper, fallacious and illegal pursuit of an immoral war and the evisceration of our civil liberties, to ponder whether they were committing acts that might land them in jail? Given the individuals, I'll concede that perhaps nothing would have deterred them from committing impeachable offenses, that in the words of the House, were "subversive of constitutional government," caused "great prejudice to the cause of law and justice" and brought "manifest injury to the people of the United States."
We can undo some of the damage that the Nixon pardon caused. And that task must be taken up by the incoming Democratic majority. Incoming Speaker Pelosi and incoming Majority Leader Reid, if you continue to refuse to hold the current Administration accountable, as set forth in our Constitution, for the breaking of our laws and the violation of their sworn oaths, you will only be prolonging our national nightmare for years and possible generations to come. Future presidents will not hesitate to repeat the behavior of the Nixon and Bush Administrations because they will see our track record--our unwillingness to hold our elected leaders accountable for laws they violate. Based on lies that they will cloak in their own justification and without the proper Constitutional authority, future presidents will embark on wars that will kill countless more young men and women.
Who ever wrote this article does not have the guts to put his or her name down.
The national nightmare was not completely over when Nixon was pardoned but the road to healing was followed.
Just think of the nightmare if more trials were held especially with Nixon. The country had enough, it was best to close the matter.
It is ludicrous to link Iraq to Nixon's pardon. Blame Congress for agreeing with G. Bush's invasion of Iraq. They could have voted against it but didn't.
Posted by: Astounded | December 29, 2006 at 06:47 PM
Who ever you are, are you willing to blame Clinton for his powder puff treatment of Al Queda in the 90's that let them grow in power, enough power and abilities to destroy the WTC?
Are you willing to blame Clinton for the chaos he created in the country by having a young tart under his desk and denying, lying afterwards?
Democrats live in glass houses too. The difference is that some Democrats forget that.
Posted by: Astounded | December 29, 2006 at 07:29 PM
Uh Oh you woke the freepers up?
Posted by: Nate | December 30, 2006 at 10:18 AM
Probably not. The author did a "blog and run."
Posted by: Astounded | December 30, 2006 at 11:26 AM
A blog and what. This author's name is all over this site. You more or less made the author's point. If the impeachment went through it would have been much more difficult for the Dems to give Bush a blank check.
Posted by: Nate | December 31, 2006 at 10:03 AM
As Nate pointed out, there is only one author here--that would be me and my name is quite clear. Happy New Year.
Posted by: Tasini | December 31, 2006 at 01:06 PM
I came to this site by clicking on a link in another site. The first page I saw was this. I read the post and replied. Eventually I realized that this is a one author site. However, I suggest that for visitors such as myself, seeing the author's name at the bottom of the article on this page would have eliminated this problem.
Posted by: Astounded | January 01, 2007 at 03:32 PM
If Nixon was impeached, why would that have affected Bush's war plans? Policies and mishandling of the Vietnam war had a greater effect on our Presidents' and our military ability to go to war.
Impeachment is not removal from office. If Nixon was impeached, the Senate may have acquitted him, like they acquitted Clinton after Clinton was impeached. If Nixon was acquitted, he would have been back in the oval office as the President. Nixon decided to resign before he was dragged into the Senate for a trial. Clinton decided to ride the storm. If Nixon was convicted, he would have had to leave the office involuntarily. I believe that would have been worse than Nixon's resignation and Ford's pardon of Nixon.
I don't agree with the reasons Bush used to engage war in Iraq. I have no doubt that Congress will enact laws to keep future presidents for going to war on erroneous and shaky premises and "slam dunks".
George Bush is getting most of the heat and rightly so. But Congress also bears responsibility because they had a chance to vote against Bush's war plans in Iraq. Instead they supported Bush. Congress could have asked for more time.
What happened or didn't happen over 30 years ago has less of an effect on our present than what happened in the 90's.
What-ifs and speculations on this amount to reasons for a discussion, debate, blogging, and hopefully to a better understanding of the past.
Posted by: Astounded | January 01, 2007 at 03:49 PM
I think Congress has been held accountable to some degree over their support of the war in Iraq, as many of them were removed from Congress in November. The country had an opportunity to do the same with GWB in 2004, but it didn't happen. There may be more accountability for Congress in 2008, we'll see what happens.
As far as the Nixon should have been tried debate, I would have liked to have seen it happen in 74. Of course, my feelings are hindsight, as I was only 13 at the time Mr. Nixon resigned, but I feel that the pardon ushered in more intense period of the rich and powerful being given carte blanche for their actions, and I do agree with Tasini's premise that if he had been held accountable, it may have given others pause before they took some of the actions we have seen over the past 30 years. Iran-Contra would be one such example along with the current debacle.
It is good to see that you admitted your error in not knowing this was a one author page (so many people today refuse to ever admit error), however, in the future you should not be accusing anyone of the blog and run, if you are going to blog under a name I am sure your mother didn't give you. However, if your mother did name you Astounded, I apologize.
Posted by: Kevin F Droste | January 01, 2007 at 06:38 PM
You don't speak for my mother.
Anonymity is essential and wise on the Internet.
With all due respect, I have seen enough on this site.
Farewell
Posted by: Astounded | January 01, 2007 at 09:30 PM