The most important point to be made is that it's simply not practical right now. If we had the votes, I'd be all for it. But we don't, and unless investigations turn up a real big smoking gun, we won't get them in the next 2 years.

Channeling Rumsfeld: "Do I think that Bush has committed impeachable offensives? Probably."

If you believe Bush has committed impeachable offenses, then you should believe Bush should be impeached.

It should be that simple.

I think there is grounds for impeachment if Bush stalls on the Iraq Study Group recommendations and continues his "stay the course" mentality.  Bush only has a couple of months to buy into this or less.  If he fails, he will lose the respect of most Americans to a degree not seen by any President ever.  I think then there will be grounds to seriously discussing whether or not we can wait until the next election, or if we need new Presidential leadership to get us out of Iraq.

They can be "wrong," or they can use "false" claims, or they can lead you to "bad" conclusions.

Maybe you meant the comparison is based on a false premise? Either way, "false" is not a word that can modify a comparrison.

Sorry, I shouldn't be taking it out on you. I should be taking it out on all the Democrats who like to use the word "false" to describe opinions which are, in fact, "wrong," because they think it makes them sound more factual, or more academic, or less offensive, or something, when really it just makes them sound weak, hiding behind multiple choice answers rather than judgments and convictions (like "right!" and "wrong!"). "False" is not a more clear-cut word for "wrong," it is a word used to describe the veracity of positive statements, (or truth-claims, as some epistemologists would call them).

And Matt, you're right about this stuff, except, I think John Conyers entered articles of impeachment a while ago.

Impeachment should be off the table unless we want to lose both chambers in 2008

How shocked and refreshed would the country be to see politicians focused not on the past and tearing down their enemies out of spite and ill will, but looking forward to the future and how they can pass legislation that will actually benefit the country?

    Chris, what part of impeachable offense don't you understand? The criteria for impeachment of the president are High crimes and midemeanors. Lets see now. Illegal preemptive war against country with no proof, just like Nazi Germany's attack against Poland? Check. Genocide that will cause over a million deaths. Check. Contempt of Congress by assuming dictatorial powers. Check. Obstruction of Justice (Plamgate). Check. Pergery. Check. Listen, With what Bush has done, Nixon shouldn't have been impeached; the bastard should have been given the Congressional Medal of Honor!

Chris, you're writing this because you're smart and what you've said needed to be articulated clearly.  The hatred of the Bush administration among progressives is palpable.  Impeachment doesn't even seem enough.  (My own fantasies run more along the lines of carrying them off in chains and sent to Gitmo; the only possible use I see for waterboarding is to use it on the Neocons.)  That said, I'm in total agreement with you that Democrats will gain much more from doing SOMETHING that involves delivering needed government services to the people.  

If two years are taken up with retribution, where are we on healthcare, the environment, the economy, fair and honest voting, shutting down the K Street Project?  Pelosi is smart enough to know that she needs to look like a problem-solver, not an angry mommy, to get America on her side.  I really don't want to see people ham-string her with damands for punishment.  Investigation of war profiteering -- by all means!  Impeachment -- a waste of time.  History will judge Bush, harshly.  No presidential library "think" tank in the world can white-wash what he's done.

just illusion, confusion and a total misreading of any history of Congress.  

Nothing happens like this comment by NealB.  Nothing.

The best thing I heard about impeachment is that it is not a political party process.  It is in the Constitution as a safeguard for the people, not for the parties to use politically, which is what happened with Clinton. The Founding Fathers were mostly extremely sceptical about the interests of political parties.

Impeachment, to arise from the Constitution's purpose for it, would need to follow from the facts gathered through investigation and oversight and become so obvious to the people that it would be demanded by them.  That could still happen, but it certainly shouldn't according to this come from a political campaign or independent PACS set up to achieve impeachment.  So let the Congress do its mandated oversight and we shall see if a call to impeachment arises from overwhelming evidence.

Until then, Congress should govern and get things done, including oversight.  Let impeachment be a result (if it should come to that, which I hope it does not), not a purpose, of government actually working.

Impeachment would be a total error.  

We would lose both the House and the Senate.

In fact, impeachment is what the Republicans want MOST OF ALL. They desperately want us to squander the next 2 years chasing this Children's Crusade of a stupidity.  That way, they can call the Dems the Party of Hate Bush, the Party of No Ideas, the Party of Divisiveness, the Party of Hate, etc.

And the Dems would be making explanations.   If you are making explanations, you are losing.

As Chris suggests, it's not going to affect the view of those who prefer not to be confused with the facts.

But clearly and concisely summarised.

Quick question: why does official Dem prose (eg, New Direction) have to be so eye-gougingly ghastly?

Quick answer: pay Chris megabucks to write the stuff for them!

That's always the problem.

People want to do the right thing, but they're afraid someone, somewhere, will spin what they do to  their distinct disadvantage. Given the disfunctional nature of our society, our institutions, and our government, I can't say I blame people for being squeamish.

That's the problem.

Has dubya committed impeachable offenses? You bet. In spades.

We need to do the right thing. Our Congressional institutions need to expose dubya and his administration of malfeasance. The power of subpoena is a good thing, the self-righteous cable gasbags be damned.

Most of all, I want to hear the inside-the beltway chattering classes explain to me why getting a blow job in the Oval Office is an impeachable offense, and why committing crimes against humanity are not.

It's all in the timing. The vote to impeach should come in January 2009 - in the interim between the seating of the new Congress and the swearing in of the new President.

Because we can.  

The only way you get to impeachment is to hold investigations. As long as the Democrats pursue investigations in a responsible and appropriate fashion (while also making sure that those investigations don't get in the way of either passing legislation or the perception that the Democrats are putting the business of the country front-and-center), then everything else will follow naturally.

In other words, either those investigations will create public and congressional support for impeachment or they won't.

The investigations, however, are non-negotiable (IMO): Failing to investigate the massive corruption of the past several years would be a dereliction of duty, plain and simple.

I agree with your analysis of how practical this is.  At the same time, I disagree with your analysis of how necessary it is. This administration has committed crimes against humanity and has damaged our democracy. We cannot ignore that record.  Yes, of course the media will blow its hot air all over the place, but Congress isn't there to provide entertainment.  It's supposed to do the work of the people, and the work of the people at this point has to include ensuring that our freedoms are never again threatened from within.  The gasbags be damned.

I thought it was interesting as the figures came in showing there would be a Democratic majority in Congress that the conservative pundits immediately began asking in hushed tones whether there would be impeachment proceedings.

Why would they ask that question, unless even they thought that there were good grounds?  I mean, surely that isn't the usual topic of conversation when power in Congress switches hands?

I'm not sure why you're writing this either.

You've added a net zero to the discussion.

This comment has nothing to do with the substantive position you've taken, except to say that there was no particular value to your restating exactly the same substantive position taken by dozens before you.

Naturally, it's no secret that I disagree with those positions, but that doesn't even enter into this. What I'm saying here is that all of this has been said before.

A couple users are giving comments a "1" rating solely for having the temerity for thinking that impeachment is a bad idea.

Knock it off.  Trying to censor opinions you don't like is childish and stupid.

Probably? Bush confessed to numerous felonies when he revealed he was doing an end-around on the FISA court.

Slam dunk.

I'm of the mind that these people are criminals, whose only loyalty is to money and power. They are a cancer on the body politic, and should therefore be excised. Their illegally obtined weath should be confiscated, and Halliburton, Blackwater, etc., should receive the corporate death penalty.

Bush and Cheney, and their toadies, should not only be impeached, but tried for war crimes, both here in the States and in the ICC in Den Hague.

Whatever happened to the rule of law?

I think this timidity over impeachment is a direct result of the witch-hunt that turned the Cliton presidency into a political triage unit. It's put us off our food, so to speak.

Well, I for one don't like the idea that we shouldn't impeach because it would be messy politically, and I'm really quite shocked that many on the progressive side of the blogosphere don't seem to have the stomach for this.

Impeach! Impeach! Impeach!

We cannot let them get away with this criminal behavior.

Period.

Got a lot of serious problems to fix and impeachment impedes solving those problems.

If Congress simply restored civil rights we lost from Patriot Act that would be huge...a No.1 on the list kind of thing.

Something that could be done RIGHT NOW.

That'd be a nice netroots campaign item.

here, perhaps summarized as proceeding with a "Do Something" Congress, passing middle and lower-class progressive bills and sending them to Bush, daring the veto and letting the Republicans scramble to explain the opposition.  All the while, Conyers, Waxman, Dingell, et al proceed with their investigations (and this time with subpoena power and not in the basement).  If impeachment becomes so obvious within 1 year (not 2 years because 2008 will be an election year), then it will be because the Republicans are holding their own accountable like Nixon's forced resignation.

Impeachment is the only method to hold Bush accountable while in a Constitutional Office, if I am not mistaken.  Out of office, however, and would it not open up crimes against humanity (for one example) prosecutions for a citizen, no longer protected by a Constitutional Office?  Germany isn't waiting to go after Rumsfeld, is it not possible that the Bush-Cheney-Rice-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-etc. cabal can be held to account well into the future, after the Democratic Party has shown (again) that it really does a good job at governing, despite the RWCM trying their hardest to show otherwise?

I tend to agree with Chris on this. Nothing would unite the GOP faster than impeachment, and nothing would distract from our agenda more either. Unforuntately the reality of politics is that sometimes doing what we feel is right is not in the best interests of our party, or our nation.

Also, does anyone really like the sound of "President Cheney"? Assuming we wouldn't impeach both (which the country would never tolerate IMHO), Dick would be running the show for the next two years, and all of us on this blog might have a government sponsored 'vacation' to a naval base in Cuba.

Um, NealB, you are aware that impeachment isn't the same as conviction, right?  The Republicans in '98 had the votes to impeach, but not to convict.  Much good it did them.

Plus, what you're describing--Congress resolving to take out the entire executive branch by fiat--sounds like a pretty Bushistic abuse of power to me.

Just to reiterate, being able to impeach the President is not the same as being able to remove him from office.  I mention this only because a number of peple here seem to be wondering whether getting Bush would enough, or if we could get the next in line, too.  Guys, it will never, ever come to that point.

This is exactly what I wrote on DailyKos at Thanksgiving:

I do honestly believe that both Bush and Cheney deserve to be impeach, tried on charges of High Treason, convicted, and hanged, drawn, and quartered the old-school British way. ;-)  However, from a political standpoint, I don't think that'd help either us or the country all that much.

What would help is the vigorous investigation process that would eventually lead to impeachment, but we'd be better served by using those investigations as a tool to educate the public and build a real movement to undo all of the damage the last twelve years of Republican rule have wrought.

Read more

1) Democrats don't impeach Bush, Congress impeaches Bush.  We would not impeach Bush without bipartisan cooperation.

2) Impeachment isn't a legislative priority, it is a tool to use in case Bush willfully flouts Congressional authority.

3) Taking impeachment off the table is removing a huge source of potential leverage, for no reason.

4) Impeachment could be critical to governance in various scenarios I'm playing in my head.

You're setting up a straw man, Chris.  Impeachment isn't something to push for unless it's clearly necessary as tool to push back on Executive authority overreach.  Let's see how Bush reacts to Congress, and then figure out whether the public is satisfied with his intrangience.

So, if 69% of the public supported impeachment, would you still oppose it?

I probably agree with you at a fundamental level as much as anyone else at this site, particularly among long-time commentators.  (I signed up back in the day when you could still comment as "anonymous hero.")  But this is really BAD argument, Chris.  Possibly the first I've ever heard from you that I would characterize that way.

Why is that?  Simple: It completely disregards principle on an issue where principle cannot rightly be ignored, and it sacrifices principle to expediency without considering how the two might be reconciled.

Now, I happen to agree substantially with your general conclusion--that impeachment has virtually no chance to succeed, and a potential to actually help the Republicans.  (Although your citation of polls is misleading, since the question is typically "Based on what you have read or heard, do you believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office, or don't you feel that way?", which is certainly premature to ask even before an investigation has even begun.) But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, if it is both right and necessary to do.

My problem with impeachment is simply this: it's too little, too late.  Our problem is that we didn't impeach Reagan and Bush over Iran-Contra.  That failure--in the name of the same sort of lame excuses being trotted out right now--paved the way both for the purely political witch-hunt impeachment of Bill Clinton, and for the wholesale lawlessness of the Bush Regime.  At this stage, impeaching Bush and Cheney would not come close to remedying the problem they embody and symbolize.

Therefore, I strongly support continued activism around impeachment, because I think these issues need to be raised.  But they are only one facet of the systemic corruption, and virtual abandonment of democracy--and its preconditions dating back to the Magna Charta--that we now face.

The substantive political issues that Chris points to, as well as the winning of the presidency in 2008, and beyond that, the continued transformation of the Congress, the strengthening of the 50-state project, all these are vitally important as well.  But even if we could successfully pursue them in a constitutional vacuum, they alone would not secure our future.

I don't have a simple pre-packaged way to resolve and combine these perspectives.  There is a tension here, and it ultimately cannot go away until we have returned to constitutional government, which we have not had for quite some time--since November 2000 at the very least, but I would argue since Iran/Contra and the October Surprise before it.

The more that "sensible, pragmatic" types dismiss this as "impractical," the more it feeds the more irrational forces that can increasingly focus on impeachment.  We have already seen what a liability it is to have an often self-marginalizing peace movement, rather than one that cannot be ignored.  This is why even the most hard-nosed realists within the Democratic activist community should want to treat the impeachment option with dignity and respect, despite disagreeing with it: because we need a healthy tension between different factions, and positions, each represented by its best possible advocates.

The principle here is exactly the same that I have always had toward people on the opposite wing of the party--the "centrists."  I do not attack Lieberman because he is a centrist, but because he is a bad centrist, a party-destroying centrist.  He is, ultimately, a very bad representative for centrists, and I'm glad that a number of centrists on this site have said so themselves.  I will certainly criticize all centrists because of policy differences, but I will just as assuredly understand Senator Nelson's position representing Nebraska, and not expect him to vote and speak out like Boxer, Feingold, or Sanders.

And I ask the same sort of consideration for high-calibre impeachment activists as well.  We are strenghtened by our diversity when it is principled and well-argued.  We are strengthened by a diversity of organizing approaches as well.  We are strengthened by our ability to keep our minds open to new ideas and new information, even as we remain committed to our chosen positions.  We can not only walk and chew gum at the same time, we can do it with dignity, grace, compassion and mutual respect.

And we can make America be America again.  As  Langston Hughes said:

"O, let America be America again--
The land that never has been yet--
And yet must be--the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negr