Speaker Pelosi has said that "impeachment is off the table." For many, the commutation of Libby's sentence has been the tipping point. With 60% of the American public thinking Bush should have left the sentence in place. For others it was reached a long time ago. However, the fact remains that the accumulation of disrespect for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the American people is now so evident through Mr. Bush's continued actions, not to mention his deliberate misuse of executive power, whether it's illegal and warrantless wiretapping, thumbing his nose at Congress (aka contempt of Congress), signing statements, the fabrication of talking points in the SOTU speech before the war, the incompetence and mismanagement of the Iraq war, authorizing torture, or the current escalation in Iraq, that many people just want revenge. When it comes to Dick Cheney, from sending Scooter Libby to do his dirty work to ignoring subpoenas, well, his use of the vice president's office has always been beyond constitutional bounds, but that's the way George W. Bush likes it. But Mr. Cheney has never thought the executive is accountable to anyone. However, none of these issues makes the case for impeachment. Screaming at the wind doesn't either. It takes high crimes and misdemeanors to get the ball rolling, and if you look at the Iraq authorization, as well as the latest supplemental, not only will you see the reason for Bush's continued arrogance, but illustrated within those votes is the evidence that the Democrats in Congress have been complicit in his actions by continually acquiescing to whatever the president wants. Congress is investigating, but the White House is stonewalling, so it's off to court we go. Tick-tock, run out the clock. No consequences is only part of the reason he commuted Libby's sentence, but it's clear Mr. Bush does not fear the Democratic leadership in Congress. Why should he? When you have Senator Reid giving speeches against more escalation in Iraq, while voting for the supplemental; and Speaker Pelosi saying impeachment is a waste of time, while previously stating it's "off the table," with no case actually being made, the threat of holding the executive branch accountable is packaged only in exploding rhetoric.
Bang!
Yawn, now on with the executive business as usual.
So in order to get the conversation going on impeachment a case must be made. It simply has not so far and until that happens everything else is just wild-eyed liberals howling at the moon.
But even before that and just as important a step is gaming the reality of the action being a success and prognosticating what happens if it is not. After all, is anything more important than getting out of Iraq, or winning the White House in '08, as well as enhancing our majority in Congress? Is stepping into the impeachment debate worth the energy and effort it will take, especially with the time we have remaining?
The impeachment of Bill Clinton will never be forgotten by Democrats. But neither will it's cost. While Al Qaeda was arming and planning 9/11, the Republicans in the House were busy targeting a president. They dropped the ball and spent all of their time on Clinton. It cost us.
I've always been against impeachment because of how badly we are dug down in Iraq. Within that war are so many malfeasant moments it's hard to know where the list begins and ends. But we're in real trouble in Iraq, serious, serious trouble, so what would this mean to our fighting men and women? They can take anything, of course, and there may even be quite a few soldiers who would yell enthusiastically for the action.
There is also the obvious obstructionist Democrats who would never do anything like impeachment, no matter how grievous the high crimes and misdemeanors were. I'm also talking about so called conservative Democrats, including Joe Lieberman, as well as quite a few Blue Dog Dems. We cannot discount the media in this and then there is the punditocracy. Can you just hear the Fox "News" Democrats pontificating on impeachment with Sean Hannity? That is if Fox "News" would even cover it seriously.
But again, how will all this come down on our 2008 Democratic primary candidates? Which ones would support it and which ones would not? Would impeachment be the thing that finally exploded the differences in the Democratic Party between the old Dems and the new ones to form a stronger progressive alignment? Or would it just implode us altogether?
House Republicans and some in the Senate, like Fred Thompson, were loaded for bear when they went after the Big Dog. Being righteously unified makes all the difference.
Then there is the time factor involved. We don't have much of it left and what we do have must be spent on Iraq, stopping a hit on Iran, then making the case for our candidates in '08.
I don't have the answer on this one, but we clearly have not made a constitutional case on the merits. Screaming about impeachment doesn't get it done either. Using the word over and over again won't. Only a methodical case will, but even then it's very unlikely the Democrats will unify behind it, which includes our '08 candidates. That's likely why last night Keith Olbermann, in a special comment, called for Messrs. Bush and Cheney's resignation, but not their impeachment.
Meanwhile, House Democrats are going to hold hearings on the misuse and abuse of presidential clemency power. That should have been done after Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich. You likely know who was one of Mr. Rich's attorneys by now: I. Scooter Libby. ... and the political world keeps on spinning.
- Taylor Marsh LIVE! can be heard from 3-4 pm eastern - 12-1 p.m pacific, Mon.-Thurs, with podcasts available.