I find it fascinating that there appears to be a new surge of impeachment advocates who find Bush's latest offense to be the straw that broke the camel's back. Others are shocked and outraged by this blatant hubris. Well, I find it comforting to know that more people are finally waking up to the reality called the Bush administration.
These same people who are advocating impeachment, now that Bush has commuted Libby’s sentence, will swear up and down that they knew how bad Bush was, but didn't find impeachment a viable option. Not only do the Democrats not have the votes, they would argue, but it also would involve unnecessary political risks for them to pursue an unattainable goal when they should be focusing on other, more important, priorities.
For those who still feel that impeachment is an inappropriate avenue for the Democratic Party to take, I am not sure what to tell you. The arguments I hear and see stem from the aforementioned concerns of not enough votes, political risks and more important priorities. When counter-arguments are presented to these thoughtful citizens, they seem to ignore the implications of what they have just heard.
I sense that these are the same type of "Democrats" who were (are?) diehard Lieberman fans, where no argument against his continued "service" to the country could sink into their extremely thick skulls. I can only hope that they now see how tragic another Lieberman term is. He is not only campaigning for a Republican, but has also dropped the ball on his Katrina investigation. He not only believes the war in Iraq is "going well", but also thinks we should, now get this, bomb Iran in order to prevent violence. It seems many Connecticut residents are now upset with Joe for not looking out for their state. Those of us who have HATED Lieberman since at least his "criticize Bush at the country’s peril" editorial are not surprised at Lieberman’s latest antics. All we can do is shrug. As we have said all along, it is within his nature.
Now we have progressives who want to assert their belief that impeachment is the wrong thing to do. As has been argued adequately in other diaries, the votes don’t matter. What matters is the recognition that our country is one of laws. This recognition of laws needs to take precedence over all else, lest we open the door to possible anarchy or a nascent form of totalitarianism. Based on the very real threat of a change in how we value the laws of this country, I am not able to appreciate what having the votes or not having the votes has to do with anything. To simply say "oh well, whatever" in regard to this danger in deference to looking foolish, or whatever the problem is, by pursing impeachment without enough votes is not only cynical, but outrageous!
Then there is a real concern that Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot by pursing impeachment. Some believe there will be political risks in going after Bush, particularly when it will appear as if it is payback for Clinton. Or maybe there is a concern of Democrats looking weak for not being able to get the votes to impeach. Or better yet, the public will believe the Democrats are wasting time instead of passing legislation as they promised during their 2006 campaign, where Speaker Pelosi also took "impeachment off the table." These naysayers are convinced that the public would not tolerate silly impeachment hearings.
Well, I have a reminder for those cynics who feel that this fabricated public pressure should be given into by the Democrats. At one time in our history, the public would not tolerate freeing African American slaves, a woman’s or African American’s right to vote, interracial marriage or even an African American or female presidential candidate. None of these things were tolerated, but righteousness always won. It is righteous to pursue impeachment. Will historians forgive the Democrats for considering their political risks above attempting to ensure the integrity of our constitution and laws? I think they will lump these opportunists in with the rubber stamp Republicans who have, and still are, damaging our country to its foundation. I believe the excuse of "political risks" will cause future generations to lament the choice of expedience over trying to maintain the rule of law.
Lastly, we have their strongest argument against impeachment: more important priorities. I agree:
- Getting our asses out of Iraq IS an important priority.
- Attempting to undo the damage of twelve years of Republican selfishness at the expense of the rest of us IS an important priority.
- Enacting legislation to assist and to save the innocent lives that Republicans appear to despise IS an important priority.
Yet I am surprised that this argument of more important priorities is still being used as a reason against impeachment. Not only are the present Republicans in Congress still voting in lock step with Bush on most matters, preventing veto overrides, but the Democrats in Congress also did not find getting out of Iraq so important as to cut off the funding of an expensive war that cannot be "won". Sure, they have passed some impressive legislation since 2006 and can most likely do a few more notable things (at the expense of our troops, I‘m sure) before 2008.
But I am not buying it as a reason to forego an attempt to impeach.
Without a secure knowledge that we are a land of laws and not men, what other illegal acts that cost American lives will be executed? If we allow our constitution to be compromised without recourse, essentially sanctioning one travesty after the next, what does it matter if we undo the damage of the last twelve years? Even if we enact legislation to ensure better lives of the masses, what will it mean when the Democrats have tacitly condoned a president’s right to ignore the laws that they pass?
Sure, there are the subpoenas and the hearings and the talking heads on CNN, but isn’t it a possibility that the subpoena fight will continue throughout the next 18 months, giving Bush the ability to continue his assault on our country without any real oversight? Has exposing their mischief done ANYTHING to stop them from continuing their illegal acts over the last seven years? Should we give them the ability to cover more acts of malicious insanity until 2008 by fighting over the power of the subpoena? Should we signal to future presidents their "right" to ignore our laws when other priorities crop up?
I have been an impeachment advocate ever since it was confirmed that Bush/Cheney stole the 2000 election. So when I heard about the Libby commutation, all I could do was yawn and switch the channel. The country I love has accepted these types of offenses for years without a serious consideration of impeachment. Like an abused wife, we go back again and again, thinking he will change. But when we see that he hasn’t we make up any excuse to stay married to the lout, subconsciously knowing that he will hit us again and again.
To claim that Bush/Cheney should not be impeached due to not having enough votes, political risks and more important priorities is something with which I can never agree. This is like saying a battered woman should stay with her husband because of the children, because of not having a job or because he says he loves her. Tolerating a battered woman, for any reason, is offensive. Not attempting to impeach a rogue president, for any reason, is unacceptable.