As I write this, there are no less than three "Recommended Diaries" planning an impeachment strategy of the President based on the latest so-called smoking gun. I implore all Kossacks: enough. Stop. You are wasting your well-meaning, well-placed, and right-thinking energies.
I've had a chance to read all three diaries, and I would like to summarize the positions of those advocating impeachment into four distinct groups I've seen (more below the fold):
1. Those who think Bush can actually be impeached in the House. I really don't know what to say to you, other than you are lost. You must be the last believers on Earth of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and that Tom DeLay will announce tommorrow that he's joining the Socialist Party. Seriously, you must see that the obstacles of passing Articles of Impeachment in this House will never, ever happen. You honestly think that a House that's willing to defend and rally around DeLay's ethical slimery are going to even pass Articles of Impeachment out of committee, let alone out of the full house? I admire your wishful thinking, but it's just that: extremely wishful thinking. Moreover, to vote for the Articles would require many a Congressman to admit that they were wrong about Iraq. If there's one thing Congressman don't like do, it's admit they were wrong. As we saw on the campaign trail, even Kerry couldn't do it.
2. Those who think introduction of the Articles of Impeachment will force the issue into the media and put a stain on the President. Fair enough. This is the pure political strategy. Unfortunately, it's not one that will work. Kossacks of this stripe must have short memories. Anyone remember what happened in the mid-terms after Clinton was impeached? Anyone? Anyone? That's right: Dems gained seats in an election that normally shows a net loss of seats to the party in the White House. The Republicans did for the Dems what they couldn't do in two previous elections: unite, embolden, and put more of them in the legislative branch. Go ahead, go for the political points on this one. But to paraphrase Harry Reid, you would be giving a "big, wet kiss" to Rove. He'd absolutely love defending the President on this one. They could hide behind the cloak of the "war on terror" and say that even if the intelligence was wrong, even if they were planning a war months ahead of schedule, they were doing it to protect the American people. Sound familiar? That's what Bush said on the stump many a time. "Even knowing what I know now, I would have made the same choice to protect the American people." Worked well for him, didn't it?
3. Those that are so pissed at Bush and the war that they say, "Damn the torpedoes!" I can't stand Bush or the war either. But impeachment accomplishes nothing but a nice vent for your anger. Look, it's time to channel that anger into something productive, like figuring out a winning strategy for '06 and beyond (more on this later). Impeaching a lame duck President does nothing except, well, impeach a lame duck President.
4. Those who have made cogent arguments that the President violated Constitutional and/or international law. Actually, these are the folks I respect the most in this debate. You actually make some good legal arguments for impeachment. The one obstacle you have is evidence. I'm a trial lawyer. I go to court for a living. And based upon what I've read on the "smoking gun", I have to say: I wouldn't take this case to court. The smoking gun, a British top-secret memo, simply says this: "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Well, no kidding. We kind of knew that already. But it's no smoking gun. It'd be more of a smoking gun if they had the President on tape saying: "Look you guys. I've wanted to kick Saddam's ass ever since he tried to kill my daddy. Why don't you guys cook up some false intelligence that works well with my 'war on terror' so I can use it as a pretext to go invade Iraq." But, that's not what is there. Instead we have a rather vague, hearsay statement that the intelligence was being "fixed". Sorry, but this does not a smoking gun make.
Let me give you an alternate view of what will happen if we push for impeachment. Much like I said in point #2, a lame duck President with sagging poll numbers suddenly gets public support (a la Clinton) for a "personal attack" by "partisan Democrats". The Republican base, which is currently running away from the President on SS and just about anything else, rallies around the President. Dems are portrayed as nothing more than sore losers and whiners. 2006 rolls around and -- WHAM! -- more Republicans are elected to Congress, including a filibuster-proof 60 Republican Senators, making the debate about the "nuclear option" a moot point.
My point is simply this: stop talking about a risky pipe dream of impeachment. Start talking about a comphrehensive strategy to win back seats in '06. Push new ideas, visions, and agendas from our side of the aisle that the people can embrace. We've got the President and the Republican Congress on the ropes; why give them an escape hatch and unnecessary diversion?
So far, the Dems have been successful in portraying the Bush agenda as wrong for America. Now it's time to work on the vision that we believe is right for America so we can run on it and win in the years to come. Talk of impeachment doesn't do this, and it wastes our energies.