The ‘I-word’ makes the rounds

November 17, 2005

Roll Call Executive Editor and Fox News regular Mort Kondracke raised an interesting subject today that might be of interest to the Dem grassroots: impeachment.

Kondracke observed that the “I-word” is more common on blogs than the halls of Congress, but, he noted, it does pop up now and again. In particular, none other than John Kerry used it last week, albeit in a less-than-direct kind of way.

[In response to Bush’s Veterans’ Day speech,] Kerry also asserted that Bush did not rely on faulty intelligence before the war, “as Democrats did,” but waged “a concerted campaign to twist the intelligence to justify a war (he) had already decided to fight.”

And, said Kerry, “How are the same Republicans who tried to impeach a president over whether he misled a nation about an affair going to pretend it does not matter if the administration intentionally misled the country into war?”

That, of course, is pretty far from a suggestion that Bush actually be impeached, but Kondracke suggested it was “a trial balloon, designed to get the idea out on the table without having to accept responsibility for actually recommending it.”

Regardless, Kondracke poked around and found the word’s been used a surprising amount. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said last month that it “would be an impeachable offense” if evidence proved that Bush or Cheney authorized aides to mislead lawmakers. In June, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) held a mock impeachment inquiry based on the “Downing Street memo.” Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) has reportedly said that “this administration has committed more impeachable offenses than any other government in history” and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) has said that “lying to the Congress about a large public purpose such as Iraq” fit the constitutional test of “high crimes and misdemeanors” better than lying about sex.

Kondracke doesn’t come right out and say it, but he seems to believe that Dems might actually consider impeachment proceedings if they took back Congress next year. I seriously doubt it.

It’s not about merit; it’s about what Dems hope to accomplish. If Dems reclaim the majority, I don’t doubt that they’d start holding the administration accountable through hearings and possibly even subpoenas, but impeachment? Unless a whole legion of Dems win on a pro-impeachment platform in 2006, and feel the need to follow through on a campaign pledge, it’s not going to happen unless one hell of a smoking gun emerges.

It is entertaining to think about, though, isn’t it?

It’s not about merit; it’s about what Dems hope to accomplish.

I’m one of those guys who’d dance and sing if impeachement came up for serious consideration but even I don’t expect Democrats to go down this road if they take back Congress. It’d be seen as overreach and it would hurt us in 2008.

On the other hand, I saw a bumper sticker recently that said: Impeach Bush and we’ll call it even. Good point.

  • I don’t know if you can say unequivally that Dems should not impeach. The other word for it is “purge”, and it is what Rove would do if in our position: he is all about symbollism to define “brand image”. That doesn’t make it right in the whole scheme of things, but I think it is probably the best decision in a purely Machiavellian way. Some would argue that the Dems need to indulge their inner Machiavelli.

  • I think the only proper thing is to
    thoroughly investigate the case the
    administration made to go to war,
    and if the results are as many of
    us in American believe, the
    Congress has no choice but to impeach.
    It’s not politics Bush committed, it’s
    a multitude of crimes.

    But I don’t think they’ll take back Congress,
    and I’m not sure, if they do, that they will
    seriously investigate the case, because
    far too many of them allowed themselves
    to be duped. They didn’t do their jobs.
    In a sense, the vast majority of Americans,
    government officials, media, press and
    corporate officers, Democrats and
    Republicans are all guilty of this horrific
    crime. In short, America is guilty, and
    it’s not about to indict and convict itself
    in front of the rest of the world. It just
    won’t happen.

  • Hmmmm … Democrats wouldn’t necessarily have to advocate impeachment during the mid-term elections, just pledge to thoroughly and actively investigate any alleged mishandling of pre-war intelligence. The majority of the American people certainly believe the country was mislead. Shouldn’t we know the truth? Seems like a winning issue.

    And if, in the course of enthusiastically fulfilling that campaign pledge, an impeachable offense comes to light, Democrats would rightly have to begin impeachment proceedings, wouldn’t they?

    Talk about future Democratic accomplishments and “moving forward” is moot because nothing will change unless Cheney and Bush are out of office. If the Democrats regain the House or Senate, there will be no newfound sense of bipartisan cooperation from the White House. Just much, much more of the same rightwing demagoguery and ass-backward policies. Think the administration is flaunting the Constitution and international law now? Just wait.

    We have a broadly unpopular President who most people finally think is a liar. Instead of asking “Why impeach?” we should be asking “Why not impeach?” if the Democrats regain control of Congress.

  • If the democratic leadership doesn’t think impeachment is the appropriate action to take against a President who lies us into a war, what exactly would they impeach someone for???

    Seriously. WHAT???

    Polls show two things already:

    The majority think that if Bush misled us into the war, he should be impeached.

    The majority think Bush misled us into the war.

    Connect the freakin’ dots.

    OTOH, Bush is the best advertisement against the Republicans we’ll get for a long time. We could play that tune all the way to 2008.

  • hark, agree with your first paragraph, but think there is a good chance for the Demos to take the House, especially if the recent string of GOP “success” at all levels continues into next year. This means articles of impeachment could be brought–Will they? I think maybe not, but an investigation into this nonsense, controlled by the Demos, can really highlight all of the excesses and abuses of the current party in power. It would provide a net gain for the Demos. And by not actually impeaching the Demos can come off as the true party of reason, compromise and adulthood. But they can always make all the info public, and available to the UN if it were to so choose to proceed with war crimes investigations.

  • Every day GWB makes more lifelong Democrats. He is a gift to the Democratic Party. Democrats should go Truman doctrine on the administration: do the bare minimum to keep the stupidity from spreading, and sit back and watch as the house of cards falls in. The only other thing they need to do is make sure everyone who hitched onto Bush popularity wagon stay hitched and share his fate.

    That’s not to say subpoena power shouldn’t be used (if they obtain a majority), but it should be used carefully. A failed inquisition is one of the few ways they can lose.

  • If the democrats have any ‘political capital’ to spend, I’d rather they spend it on filibustering every single damn SCOTUS nominee from now until Jan 2009.

    But if they have any left over, I wouldn’t mind some impeachment hearings too.

  • Do Dr. Evil and Mini-me deserve impeachment?

    In my mind, yes. Plamegate alone is probably suitable grounds. The wholescale errosion of the office is also, to me, a big deal. When the commander and chief delivers partisan speechs, on veteran’s day, during a war – it is time time find a bigger man (or woman) to fill the shoes than spend three more years shrinking them.

    But, from a political standpoint, impeaching the President does not make sense for dems. Impeachment overshadows all other GOP scandals, it rolls them into one that the people will soon get tired of – yes, he is a clueless dork, but start solving real problems. If Dems regain a house in congress, pulling out GOP scandals one stinking garment at a time – then associating the stench directly with real problems – $88B missing from the CPA, how about that budget…

    Who the I word makes sense for is the GOP. Bush obviously isn’t going to cauterize the bleeding. He just spent the weekend burning the bridge. If Frist or McCain had real guts and brains, they’d realize that ‘worst president ever’ is pretty much chiseled in stone for posterity. Three more years of no ideas and alienating rhetoric is going to make it impossible for anyone but Jesus Christ to run as a Repug and take the WH in ’08.

    On the other hand, holding solemn hearings, where you ‘discover’ the smoking guns you already have – and start Impeachment hearings on Cheney, who can step down because of low voltage on the car battery hooked to his evil, shriveled little heart… You might avoid devestation in ’06 and build a reach chance at ’08.

    Won’t happen, because they are all caught in the same icky money web (sort of like those horrible movements in Africa where your new captives are forced to commit cannibal acts with you – thus binding them to you in mutual shame). Eunichs don’t suddenly sprout real balls. But, it could really help the GOP salvage what they’ve been building for over 30 years.

    -jjf

  • The time has come and gone for people to stop postulating about possible scenarios….”if we say this, they will say that, then we must say this” like it’s all one big parlor game.

    Ditto for the vapid, profitless barbs likening the White House as being part of an evil empire, having black hearts, etc. All that does it to make ourselves feel good. Fine. We have all seen the images of Bush looking like a monkey, we have read the jokes, we have posted our jaded posts…

    Now let get down to work.

    Put the bloody pressure on your elected officials. Write to the media. Demand action. Demand answers. Be a credible, calm force of open demands for resolution for these improprieties. Turn the television off. Read you bloody papers and write your bloody letters. Get involved.

    This is not a game or a sitcom. This is our country’s future.

  • If we manage to take back the Congress next year, I say we immediately impeach Bush and Cheney simultaneously (they’re equally responsible for the lies which have led to all these deaths and injuries). Your new president will then be … Nancy Pelosi!

  • I like the idea of starting with an impeachment trial of Dick Cheney because I don’t think it would be that hard to do. The war profitering alone, the 3500% profit he has made on his Haliburton holdings since the war began, at least deserves a hearing. If Cheney is as dirty as I think he is, and all of his recent behavior seems to imply as much, then I sincerely believe that no matter which party is in power, the American people will demand action. I also think the congress should not be afraid to go after him, because perhaps they voted for a war, but they did not vote for war profitering.

  • I think impeachment of both of them is inevitable and have for a long time, especially in light now of the new documentation regarding the secret energy task force. It won’t be long. The whole thing is unraveling.

  • We’d end up with Rice as President. Try to impeach Cheney and he’ll resign for health reasons, Bush names Rice as VP, Bush gets impeached, Condi is the leader of the free world.

    IF Democrats get back the House or Senate or both, better to just tie this administration into knots with hearings and investigations. Start trying to repair the damage done with real policy. There’s so much that is broken. Demonstrate leadership and get a Democrat elected in 08.

  • If the Dems take back Congress next year, a move toward impeachment is possible. However, I suspect that they’ll just let the remaining two years of the Bush disaster speak for its lame duck self and let it implode on its own bile, setting things up nicely for the 2008 elections. And at the rate of new scandal development (or even old scandals being newly investigated) taking place, that shouldn’t be too difficult to do.

    The Bush administration took the U.S. to war with promises of “shock and awe”. That will be NOTHING compared to the shock and awe at how quickly an administration can be reduced to virtual ashes like this one soon will be. Talk about spontaneous combustion! The sooner the better…and good riddance!

  • I don’t know. As much as I despise this administration (and I do), I cannot find entertainment in the impeachment of either Bush or Cheney. Nor do I believe the bumper sticker logic of calling it “even.” Republicans still have bones in their throats over the taking down of Richard Nixon – 30 years ago. Impeachment of their beloved political messiah would unhinge them for generations.

    Additionally, although the “they voted to support my decision to remove Saddam Hussein” meme may not wash with the readers of this blog, I suspect much of the public would balk at actually removing Bush from office. The line of succession offers no comfort to me – even if Cheney were not part of the equasion. I believe the critical thing between now and 2006 is to try to bring as much of the greed, sleeze, recklessness, fecklessness, incompetence, and anti-democratic behavior of this bunch as possible to the consciousness of that (large) part of the public that is only partially plugged in. I hope this will motivate liberals and attract moderates to flush deserving Republican incumbents out of office.

    Perhaps I’m letting my dismay over the place to which these jokers (with help of a lazy, bloated, status quo-loving press and in the face of less than inspire opposition) have taken my country. They’ve done so much to tear it down, I long for some recovery.

  • Agreed that if Cheney is impeached he’ll resign for (cough cough) health reasons. Hell, I expect him to resign before the 2006 elections anyway. I don’t see Rice succeeding Cheney. Bush might nominate her, but she’s as guilty as the rest of them and, assuming Dem control of Congress (which is the only way impeachment happens) she’ll never be approved. Bush will be forced to go outside his inner circle of thieves. Most likely, he’ll tap whoever appears to be the most likely GOP candidate in 2008.

  • We have to impeach to regain some of the respect we’ve lost in the international community. It is one clear way to say that we don’t agree with the policies of this administration and its not necessary to teach us a lesson – we already get these guys are lunatics who don’t represent our values.

  • Follow the example of Watergate and impeachment panel chairman Peter Rodino. Rodino is quoted several times saying that the panel went where the evidence led and that it wasn’t about politics. Rodino, incidentally, was one of the architects of the ‘under God’ insertion into the pledge and other generally conservative Democratic positions/policies so nobody can claim that he was a hate-America, left-wing, pinko-commie loving liberal.

    Remember, good policy is good politics.

    • Comments are closed.