We are living in historic times. For one, we’re watching the slow dissolution of the Bu$h malAdministration. The eight year old mind and temper in the adult body, who was so manly and virile during the success of others has once again fallen back on his life-history of abandoning failing enterprises.

Beset by innumerable scandals and criminal investigations, the Republican government of George Bu$h is falling apart. Those members of his party who are not planning their own defenses in trials are quickly side-stepping away from a man considered more toxic to a political future than the classic being found in bed with a “dead woman or a live boy.”

Having spent the last two years in desperate pursuit of the Likud Party’s secondary goal of a pre-emptive war on Iran with the destructive ferocity of that visited upon Iraq, Bu$hCo finds itself once again tripped up by its own bad faith and automatic lying.

As Nicholas Kristoff wrote in yesterday’s NY Times [TimesSelect paywall] (Quote via Agonist)

Encouraged, Iran transmitted its “grand bargain” proposals to the U.S. One version was apparently a paraphrase by the Swiss ambassador in Tehran; that was published this year in The Washington Post.

But Iran also sent its own master text of the proposal to the State Department and, through an intermediary, to the White House. I’ve also posted that document, which Iran regards as the definitive one.

In the master document, Iran talks about ensuring “full transparency” and other measures to assure the U.S. that it will not develop nuclear weapons. Iran offers “active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization.” Iran also contemplates an end to “any material support to Palestinian opposition groups” while pressuring Hamas “to stop violent actions against civilians within” Israel (though not the occupied territories). Iran would support the transition of Hezbollah to be a “mere political organization within Lebanon” and endorse the Saudi initiative calling for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
…
Instead, Bush administration hard-liners aborted the process. Another round of talks had been scheduled for Geneva, and Ambassador Zarif showed up — but not the U.S. side. That undermined Iranian moderates.

Because, above all else, the “War President” didn’t want to be seen as “weak” like his father, who stopped slaughtering people once the 1991 Coalition’s political goals had been met.

Now the Iraq catastrophe continues at full blast. We have seen almost 3,400 Americans killed there since 2003, and well over 25,000 wounded, brutally mutilated, and disgracefully ignored. We have no idea how many thousands of Iraqis have been offered up on the sacrificial altar of Bu$h ego and Likud plan, but scientific estimates claim more than half a million have died. The country is in shambles, and its infrastructure resembles that of Germany and Japan in 1945. There is no thought whatsoever of a Marshall Plan to rebuild the country.

The malAdministration is now searching for a “war czar”, someone to take control of the Iraq debacle, and somehow snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, or at least, to become the figurehead the be held accountable for the inevitable collapse.

Mr. Hadley is interviewing candidates, including military generals, for a new high-profile job that people in Washington are calling the war czar. The official (Mr. Hadley, ever cautious, prefers “implementation and execution manager”) would brief Mr. Bush every morning on Iraq and Afghanistan, then prod cabinet secretaries into carrying out White House orders. ...

“What we need,” he said in a recent interview, “is someone with a lot of stature within the government who can make things happen.” [emph added]

According the Constitution and Federal Law, there are two such officials. One, the National Security Advisor, is tasked with the daily reporting to the President on all matters relating to the security of the US, including matters of “domestic, foreign, military and intelligence and economics.”

The “make it happen guy” has an office right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That’s the fellow we’ve been told for the last six years is the “Commander-in-Chief.” Art II, Sec 2 of the Constitution provides

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Based solely upon Mr Hadley’s own words, quoted in this article, I take it that he and the man he reports to are in agreement that Mr Bu$h no longer wishes to perform his Constitutional duties.

Well, there is a way of correcting that. (Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid, please take note.)

Art I, Sec 2, US Constitution:
“The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.”

Art I, Sec 3, US Constitution
“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

Art I, Sec 8, US Constitution
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States…
…
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations
…
Art I, Sec 4
“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.”

It appears to me that refusal to perform the constitutionally mandated office of the Presidency is an impeachable offense.

What say you, Madame Speaker, Senator Reid?