Former U.S. Congresswoman and member of the Nixon Impeachment Panel, Elizabeth Holtzman, joined forces with journalist Cynthia L. Cooper to publish, The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens.

Elizabeth is the youngest woman ever elected to the U.S. Congress and won national attention for her role on the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate. Reflecting on her past experiences, and the present actions of the current administration, Elizabeth states there are many similarities between the impeachable offenses of President Nixon and President Bush.

Here’s Elizabeth…

You begin the book by chronicling your involvement in the Nixon Impeachment Panel, which took just under two years. And make a point of stating that the history of Nixon’s criminal offenses, impeachment, and resignation are often remembered and summarized to be “an instant� in American history. Can you talk more about this?
It just seems like all the bad things that happen are telescoped into one incident. Watergate itself is generally telescoped into the break-in even though it encompassed many, many other things. And the impeachment [encompassed] many, many other things.

You describe yourself as having numerous déjà vu moments that flashback to the abuses of power Nixon was impeached for. Do you think many Americans who lived through this episode in American history, are able to make these connections?
The most obvious connection is not only what I drew, but what John Dean [ex-Nixon aide] drew, which is the connection involving illegal wiretapping. There are also the smear techniques, the Scooter Libby matter, and the leaking of material. But probably the biggest analogy is the wiretapping. Of course you also have the Iraq war, which was conducted and initiated on the basis of deliberate and knowing deception on the part of President Bush. And you have Richard Nixon’s deliberate deception of Congress regarding the Cambodia bombings. So, you have a number of analogies.

But do you think the average American your age is able to make these analogies?
Most people have forgotten a lot about Watergate. If they remember it, they remember it as the break-in of the hotel. They don’t remember all the associated criminality, abuse of power, or illegality that accompanied the break-in that was part of the Richard Nixon presidency.

You include numerous amounts of evidence cited in various journals and newspapers that illustrate how Bush abused his power and did not “take care� to see that the laws were faithfully executed. What do you have to say to the American voter who still believes that President Bush did the best he could and he is not responsible for the crimes you list? And what do you think is the foundation of this perception of President Bush?
“The best he could,� I don’t agree with that. I think the evidence, at least that I cite in the book, and I’m sure there’s more because he’s refused to disclose so much information, show that he deliberately deceived the American people about the reason for the war in Iraq.

“Best he could,� best he could do is level with people and make a decision for going to war on the basis of pure facts, not on the basis of lies. He duped people into war. Secondly, were his refusals to obey the law with regards to wiretapping, and with regards to the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act in terms of the treatment of detainees.

It’s very simple to obey the law, and he knows how to do it. He has repeatedly applied for wiretap approval. He didn’t jump that completely. He jumped it for certain kinds of wiretapping. He knows what to do because he’s done it. It’s not even a credible argument to say that he’s done his best. He’s done his best to deceive the American people, and he’s done his best to violate the rule of law. But he hasn’t done his best to obey his oath of office and adhere to constitutional requirements. That he hasn’t done his best.

Then why do you think a good number of Americans give him that kind of excuse that he did the best he could?
I don’t know if they do. I actually never heard that.

I’ve heard people say that since September 11th it’s been very hard for President Bush, and he’s doing the best he can. In addition to they believe him when he says he is struggling to do the right thing and that he’s working hard.
Oh, nobody thinks he’s working hard. Please! He’s taken more vacation I think in the first term or first two years [of his presidency] than most Americans ever see. It’s ludicrous!

I know that, and you know that.
He even had to put up that he has a reading list because people don’t even think he reads. This is a man who apparently doesn’t read newspapers. What could he be busy doing? He spends a lot of time on his exercise bicycle! Please!

I can’t help people who don’t want to deal with the facts. But that’s not really the story. I don’t think most Americans would put him in the category of hard working, well read, knowledgeable. Those are not adjectives that people associate with George W. Bush.

When Richard Nixon resigned in the face of certain impeachment, after the smoking gun tape showed that he orchestrated the cover-up personally, every single Republican and member of the House Judiciary said that he should be impeached. But there were still over 20 percent of the American people who supported him. It takes some time for some ideas to get through people’s heads, and for them to absorb the facts. I don’t think we can be troubled by that group of people. I think what you ought to do is educate the majority of Americans as to what the Constitution requires, why impeachment is in the constitution—which is to protect our democracy—and who’s responsibility is it to use it, which is Congress and the American people.

John Hopkins University recently released the results of their study, which estimate 655,000 Iraqis have died since the beginning of the US-led war in Iraq in March 2003. It is more than 20 times the estimated 30,000 civilian deaths President Bush stated in a previous speech. Can President Bush be held legally accountable for these deaths, especially since no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq?
First of all, I haven’t studied that number. Maybe it’s accurate, maybe it’s not. Clearly there are a large number of Iraqis who have died in this war, and certainly there are too many Americans who died in this war, and more than 20,000 Americans have been injured. So, the point is, we should never go into a war on the basis of lies to the American people. The costs are too high to us, to human lives, and to human treasure. It’s a diversion of resources, and it’s too high for whomever we’re going to war with. That’s why that decision has to be made on the basis of being straight forward and honest with the American people. That’s not what happened here. President Bush deceived the American people knowingly and deliberately.

Now, some people can make the argument that since we signed the UN charter and we agreed on the treaty not to go to war unless you are attacked or unless there was a UN resolution for going to war, that the war is illegal. I don’t make that argument in the book. I’m not saying it is correct or incorrect. I just don’t address that point. And there are other arguments others want to make. I’m not saying I’ve exhausted every single argument, but it seems to me that the strongest argument in terms of impeachment and subversion of the Constitution is lying to the American people about the reason for the war. Which [ultimately] means [the American people], nor Congress, could make a proper decision about whether to go to war or not.

Theoretically he could have disclosed that there were no weapons of mass destruction, we just want to remove Saddam Hussein. The American people could have supported it. And then you wouldn’t have a ground for impeachment even though you might have had a violation of the UN charter. That’s why I’m trying to be very narrow in my focus in terms of what I believe are impeachable offenses.

What do you have to say to the average American who thinks all governments lie, so what makes the Bush administration so different?
People can lie about certain things, and they can be lied to by certain things. But lie about going to war, the consequences are now more than 2,000 [Americans] dead and 20,000 [Americans] injured and the cost of billions, untold billions. You cannot defraud the American people into going into war at that price. It’s wrong. Congress gets to participate in the decision about going to war, and that’s the most serious decision a country can ever make to send its children to die.

There was an early poll that said more than 50 percent of the American people said if it could be shown that George Bush lied to get our country into war with Iraq then he should be impeached. Well, I think the number now is 60 percent of the American people believe that he lied to get us into war. And I don’t think you can tolerate that.

In Watergate, more than half of the Democrats voted for impeachment on the basis of President Nixon’s lying about the bombing of Cambodia, but it did not win the majority of the Committee. The other Democrats and others who supported impeachment said well, Congress has passed the War Powers Resolution [limits the president’s power to wage war without the approval of Congress] and this will make it impossible for any president to lie again. Well, [Laughs] the War Powers Resolution did not work, so I think there is no remedy, and there will be no remedy in the future. We have to send a warning to this president, because he can get us into another war on the basis of the same behavior. We can’t tolerate a president who is willing to lie to the American people by going to war, and taking their sons and daughters on the basis of fraud and deception. We need to send a signal to other presidents that this can’t be tolerated either.

If you want to make the argument that other people do it, you can say that about murder. Why bother punishing any criminal? I was a DA [District Attorney]. We had hundreds of murders in Brooklyn and I had to prosecute them. Even if I prosecute all these people, there will be more murders in the future, so why bother? It’s to put the country on record as saying this kind of conduct is completely intolerable, unacceptable, over the line. And frankly, the Constitution could have said, presidents will lie, they’ll do all these bad things, why bother? Who cares? When they created it they were very worried about preserving democracy and they created the impeachment power to preserve democracy from subversion. That’s why it’s there.

Do you know of any members of Congress in office who are open to the impeachment of President Bush?
I think [Representative] John Conyers himself introduced a resolution calling for an investigation to determine if there were grounds for impeachment. I think about 30-some odd sponsors have signed up on it. Senator Feingold introduced a resolution of censure in the Senate [to show the Senate’s public disapproval of President Bush]. Three people signed onto that. Senator Boxer. I’m not sure of anybody else.

So, we have until 2008 to impeach President Bush?
Correct. Which according to my calculations is plenty of time.