That pesky "I" word that just won't die.

Our party leadership has declared Impeachment to be "off the table."  So, maybe we should close ranks and comply with the I-word lockdown... at least for now.  Although it's against my nature, I might be willing to wear a muzzle temporarily for the good of the party, but I draw the line at blinders.  So, here's what I'm reading on the subject right now...

A new An old Zogby Poll (released five days before election day, but November, 1995, which I hadn't seen until now [and was way older than I thought...but if the numbers were high then...]) showing a majority of Americans favoring the proposition: "If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."  By comparison, only 36% favored impeachment hearings against Clinton at the time they were initiated!

Impeachment Support is Closely Related to Belief that Bush Lied about Iraq

The Zogby and Ipsos polls asked about support for impeachment if Bush lied about the reasons for war, rather than asking simply about support for impeachment. Pollsters predict that asking simply about impeachment without any context would produce a large number of "I don't know" responses. However, this may understate those who support Bush's impeachment for other reasons, such as his actions before and immediately after Hurricane Katrina, his negligence prior to 9-11, his use of torture, and the CIA outing scandal.

And while the MSM has had an even more comprehensive gag rule on the subject than our party is now hoping to impose, a few editorialists are becoming less willing to keep their counsel on the matter.  Today's column by Larry Spohn, deputy editorial page editor of the Albuquerque Tribune could not be more direct in his piece entitled "It's time to impeach," which succinctly addresses the revenge argument in his closing sentences:

Impeachment is not a partisan cheap shot. It's not vengeance. It's not payback for Clinton. It's not about hating Bush.

It's about Americans holding their president and vice president fully accountable for willfully breaking the law, violating the Constitution and deceiving the American people - high crimes and misdemeanors.

I am inclined to consider the current Democratic leadership buzzword of "oversight" to be somewhat hollow without "accountability," but again, I'm supposed to be toeing a line here, so I'll leave it at that... for now.

We are not likely to convince Elizabeth Holtzman, former New York Congresswoman (who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of Richard Nixon), and co-author with Cynthia Cooper of     The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citzens, to embrace our official timidity... er... reticence, as evidenced by the [edited] snippet below from her guest column in today's San Francisco Chronicle:

Even if impeachment is "off the table," according to Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi [...] it is on Americans' table. Leaving aside partisan "gotcha" tactics, such as the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, which fail because they lack public support or constitutional basis, Congress has been historically reluctant to undertake impeachment, including during Watergate. But it has done so when public sentiment reaches a boiling point and demands holding a president accountable, as it did in 1973 after President Richard Nixon fired special prosecutor Archibald Cox.

Today we may be closer to reaching that boiling point again than some may think. [Emphasis Mine]

I was also impressed (and despite my well-deserved credentials as a cynic, moved) by "Human rights denial deserves impeachment" by Peter Phillips published in today's Topeka Capital Journal.  Yes, you read that right, not liberal bastion New York City, nor Babylon by the Bay S.F., but click-your-heels three times and repeat after me "There's no place like home" Topeka, Kansas!!!  Don't take my word for it, click the link and check it out for yourself.

So, there's a partial round-up of stuff, mostly from the stodgy MSM, on the congressional action that dare not speak its name.  I have to admit that while I am certainly glad that the "I" word was not included in Nancy Pelosi's First Hundred Hours agenda, I think "off the table" was an unfortunate choice of phrase, unneccesarily limiting our options.  Call me a mugwump... or worse.  I'm ready.