Have you ever watched the same movie or read the same book as a friend and then, in a discussion about that book or movie, wondered if you had seen the same film, or read the same book.
I got that sense when reading The Question of Impeachment by the Honorable Senator Feingold.
What movie has he been watching, I wondered, when he wrote; But on balance, I think Congress’s time is much better spent ending the war in Iraq, conducting the oversight that was absent for the last six years, and advancing progressive legislation.
Does the Honorable Senator really believe that the Bush team will back down on Iraq, and leave Iran un-bombed if they are not driven from office?
I'm not a big fan of criminal justice in this country which all too often seems to be closing the barn door after all the horses have fled. But, in those cases when the odds of a serial offender committing the same crime are high, criminal proceedings seem the way to go.
If the Bush team was working to draw down troop levels in Iraq and opening more diplomatic avenues with Iran then I would be in favor of sweeping the "impeachable offenses" to quote the Senator, under the carpet.
But this is not the case.
According to the AP The U.S. military is weighing new directions in Iraq, including an even bigger troop buildup if President Bush thinks his "surge" strategy needs a further boost the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday.
Meanwhile, according to the Guardian: The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.
I'm not arguing that one should or should not be in favor of impeachment or ending the War in Iraq and stopping the coming war with Iran. My argument is, contra Senator Feingold, that if one wishes to end the War with Iraq then removal from office is the only option.