Why Pelosi CAN'T lead on impeachment

This is a response to the diary here.  I agree with Jbearlaw's anger.  I can also see why so many are quick to condemn him for what are, admittedly, inflammatory remarks.  I believe that her earlier statementss were misguided.  The Constitution is always worth it.  Whether now is the right time or whether just announcing impeachment articles against Bush on Monday is a good idea, those are completely different questions.

I believe that Pelosi's response confuses the strategic and tactical aspects of politics.  The strategy is to minimize further damage caused by the Bush regime, and to reverse what we can of the damage that has already been done.  Where Democrats disagree is on the tactics used to do that.  Tactics that don't serve the strategic goals are worthless, or perhaps even damaging.  Simultaneously, strategic goals that are unattainable by tactical means are vapid too.  What so many of us seem to be forgetting is that Pelosi herself has no tactical options available ...

Pelosi can't sign onto H. Res. 333.  She can't call for the impeachment of Bush.  She can't react to the regime's defiance of law as we want her to.  The reason is this:

For those of you who aren't aware (which should be a very very small number of people) Pelosi currently sits third in line to the Presidency according to the law.

That is, if we were to remove everyone from the government who was guilty/culpable in some way with the regime, she would become President.  This is an obvious conflict of interest.  It's why Pelosi's tactical options are so limited.  If she does anytime that can be spun as a power play, impeachment is done.  There are right and wrong ways to go about impeachment, and Pelosi signing on to it now is the wrong way.

Don't get me wrong, I think that impeachment is demanded for what Bush & Co. have done to our nation.  That whole "if not now then when?; if not us then who?" thing resonates with me.  If impeachment isn't used against this Presidency, then it is meaningless.  I understand that there is a lot of emotion on all fronts about this.  This one has to be done by the book though.  Impeachment of Bush, or Cheney, or Abu Gonzalez, or of any other official you can think of, cannot be done in the Clinton manner.  That is, we must be careful not to give the appearance of a partisan witch hunt.  If impeachment is to take place (and it had damn well better) it must be done by the law and tradition of the Republic which we all want so desperately to save.

This means, at a minimum, the procedures outlined in the excellent front-page diary about a minimalist impeachment agenda must be followed.  We must have solid evidence to back up our claims.  While we certainly now that Bush has committed more than enough to lock him up in a dark dark place for a very long time, we have to follow the book on this one.  We are a nation of laws, and the laws say that a person should not be convicted (and that is the strategic goal of impeachment) without evidence.  Let Pelosi build her case; chastise her for her remarks; sign onto the minimalist impeachment agenda.  Just don't demand the use of tactics that would destroy the strategic goals of our movement to restore democracy and law in this country.