Impeachment? Uh, no ...

Here's the reply I just sent to a fellow Idaho Dem who forwarded an email link to an "Impeach Bush" site:

No way ...  I emphatically disagree with this, as do most of our Democratic leaders including Speaker-to-Be Pelosi and DNC chair Howard Dean.

Instead, we must achieve some major policy accomplishments for the American people. Raise the minimum wage and offer incentives to companies that create good jobs. Pass legislation to advance alternative energy. Start work toward more comprehensive health-care coverage. Find a way to get our troops home from Iraq and start making real progress against international terrorism, instead of making it worse.

Americans did not elect Democrats to get mired in a year of impeachment hearings that would leave us with ... President Cheney?! Americans elected a Dem majority to start getting something done after siix years of incompetence and corruption. If we can make some positive advances in the first months of the 110th Congress, then and only then would it be worthwhile to take some punitive measures against Bush.

But I believe even that would be a waste of time. George W. Bush is now a lame duck whom history will judge most unkindly. America has many more urgent priorities than booting his sorry butt from the White House.

Comments

[Diana Rowe Pauls]

I'm the Idaho Dem who forwarded that e-mail and I apologize for having a knee-jerk reaction! I DO believe Bush has broken laws and I do wish he could be held accountable BUT I would MUCH prefer that we focus on fixing the country and our more important problems. With a more balanced government, I have hope that Bush will be held in check and prevented from doing much further damage and perhaps progress can be made in addressing the REAL issues.

I acknowledge my mistake, I apologize, and I approve this message.

[mtnbkrid]

OK, here's my 2 cents. Bush gets a 100 day honeymoon. If he gets along and works well with adults then no problem. If he reverts to form and lies and carries on, then by all means start the impeachment process. The GOP did it to Clinton for one heck of a lot less. 2800+ American lives lost in Iraq and for what? WMD ?,Democracy?, OIL?,Bush, Cheney,and all the NEO-cons need to be held accountable for their HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS!

[BinkyBoy]

So you believe that despite the long hours of gathering evidence and information on the crimes of a war criminal, he should be allowed to be President because you want him to pass your legislation? Or you think he'll pass any of your legislation?

I think you're completely off the wall, Julie. Holding Bush in check is easy, now. Passing real legislation or getting anything done with him in the Presidency and unafraid of the punishment for his crimes will only allow him time to create more havic and damage.

[Diana Rowe Pauls]

I so hear what you are saying, BB, and as far as I'm concerned, Bush's unethical and incompetent behavior (to describe it mildly) is what got 2800+ Americans (including someone I love dearly) killed in Iraq. I would love to see him held accountable (along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and friends). I truly truly would. More than I can express rationally.

However, right now we have an opportunity to actually change the FUTURE. We cannot change the past. Our country is broke AND broken. I want our government to focus its time, energy, and resources on bringing our troops home successfully and alive. I want them to address our CRITICAL issues about education and self-sufficiency. I want them to address the imbalance of wealth of our citizens with CEOs bringing home millions while workers are having their homes foreclosed upon. I want the issues about immigration addressed rationally and objectively.

I have a bigger need for our country to be fixed first. Punishing Bush and co. will feel good and is justified, but it won't educate my children, put food on our table, keep a roof over our head, and get my husband to a doctor. Those needs are much more real to me than addressing past behaviors.

But, if like you suggested, Bush continues this crap next year and I don't see any progress... gloves are off.

[shtmlf]

You have to get the order correct, first indict Cheney, then impeach Bush, then swear in Pelosi.
Just remember to get out of Iraq, raise the minimum wage etc at the same time.

[Julie Fanselow]

Diana, thanks for chiming in, and amen to what you said two posts above. BinkyBoy, I sense what you really want is revenge, and I don't blame you after all the crap Bush has pulled. But revenge offers nothing but immediate gratification. Democrats can do better than that, for our party and for America.

Bush deserves impeachment far more than Clinton ever did, or Nixon for that matter. But pursuing it now would see the Dems STOOPING to the level of the Rethugs who impeached Clinton for, as mtnbkrid noted above, basically nothing more than defiling the Oval Office and lying about it. Do we really want to be LIKE the Republicans, or do we want to be Democrats?

Should we pursue justice? Yes. Oversight? Definitely. Accountability? For sure. Democrats were elected to do all those things. But our country has fallen far, far behind during the long days of the Do-Nothing GOP Congress, and Democrats now have the privilege and the responsibility to start making positive change.

[Doug Alder]

It would be far more satisfying to go after then once they are out of office. Doing hard time is far worse for this type than impeachment. However as I said over at Orcinus that will never happen. Bush's last act before leaving office, either because his time is up or he's impeached, will be to issue blanket pardons to everyone including himself. Your congress will have to undo the legislation that prevents other countries from prosecuting Americans and then let the Hague take care of the war criminals currently occupying the White House and its corridors.

[NY Expat]

Bush deserves impeachment far more than Clinton ever did, or Nixon for that matter. But pursuing it now would see the Dems STOOPING to the level of the Rethugs who impeached Clinton

It's not "stooping", it's doing your job.

And he's already admitted to committing over 30 felonies by violating FISA, so we can start there.

And who's to say we can't walk and chew gum at the same time? This past Congress literally had 2-day workweeks, so if we just go up to 5, like regular Americans, there should be plenty of time to pass legislation and hold the Executive branch accountable.

As for "President Cheney", I don't think the optics of that are bad at all. Let everyone be reminded that attempting to ursurp the Constitution has consequences, even for the President.

[NY Expat]

Hmmm...looks like the italics tag didn't work. The first paragraph is what I was responding to, the rest's mine.

[Bubblehead]

Even if the Dems wanted to impeach him (and they'd have to get all but 15 of the ~40 "Blue Dog" Democrats to agree), remember that neither can be removed from office without being convicted by the Senate, which would require Sen. Lieberman's vote, plus 15 Republicans. If you believe that'll happen, I have a football stadium to sell you on the BSU campus.

[No More Mr. Nice Guy!]

My two cents' worth:

1. Impeaching Bush is not about partisanship or payback for Clinton. It's about accountability, dammit! Bush, Cheney, Rice etc. need to pay for their crimes.

2. To be legitimate (at least in my eyes), an impeachment movement has to come from the ground up. (Which makes the rethugs' impeachment stunt against Clinton totally illegitimate.) Already, we've seen polls showing that at least 50% of the public want Bush impeached if it's shown that he lied us into Iraq. I suspect that we've only seen the tip of the iceberg, and some explosive and very damning information on the administration is going to come out over the next year. It's very possible that there will eventually be an overwhelming demand for impeachment, which even Pelosi can't ignore.

Anyway, sorry the elections didn't go better in Idaho. Maybe you should move to Arizona! :-)

[Julie Fanselow]

No More,

I just read in the paper today how Laird Maxwell, one of Idaho's most conservative agitators, is going to move to Arizona because Idaho is now too liberal. I gather that's because his pet project, Proposition 2, failed here by a huge margin, with everyone but Bill Sali coming out against it.

I think he will be disappointed in AZ. Isn't that the only state that nixed its marriage amendment on Tuesday?

As for me, I will stay here and fight. Idaho will eventually enter the 21st century, probably sometime around 2010 or 2012. Boise is already there, thank goodness, so I can hang on here in this oasis of liberalism.

[Jason]

I concur with everything in your post, and I think impeachment is unrealistic at this time.

I also think too many on the left are thinking with their "heart" and not their head about this matter.

[sharon fisher]

I don't think impeachment is constructive at this point. The rot in America goes far, far beyond the head, and focusing on cutting off the head means attention taken away from repairing the rest of the problems.

Also, impeaching and recalls tend to galvanize supporters, and a failed impeachment or recall can leave the person stronger than when they started (cf. Dianne Feinstein).