This diary is offered respectfully in response to ceratotherium's diary
Why I am against impeachment. (ceratotherium's points are quoted)
1. Impeachment ties up the Congress for weeks and potentially months with hearing, evidence, witnesses, the press, immunity, admissibility of evidence, questions of executive privilege at a time when the House and Senate will need to be focussed on other matters, little things like strategy and tactics in Iraq, the environment, Medicare, Social Security, making the tax code fairer, National Forest Service roads, the Military Commissions Act, stem cell research . . .
1. There is nothing more important in our way of life than justice and accountability. Not stem cells, not Social Security, not taxes, not Medicare. I'd agree with the Military Commissions act being part of that 'justice and accountability' but regardless of our 'landslide' in November, we can't overturn this bill without a veto-proof majority or a President willing to sign off on the changes. If we do not hold the highest levels of our government responsibile for actions that border on treason (some would argue solidly that the Bush Administration crossed that line and then some), how can we expect to bring order out of the chaos of the results. Until we have some measure of accountability over the Iraq war lies, there is no justice, and there is no agenda more important in Congress.
2. It sets a bad precedent. "You impeached our guy, we'll impeach your guy, you impeach our new guy, then . . . ." The only reason Nixon got away with it is he named his succesor who pardoned him. Anyone think GW will choose his successor?
2. We set a far worse precedent for failing to bring to justice those who lied and plotted to take our nation to war, something most everyone agrees is a last resort. We cannot allow this incident to simply be a 'mark on our past'. We will be judged not only on what we do, but on what we do not do in our response to the lies and actions of the Bush Administration. Passing on this issue is far worse a precedent than acting on it.
3. Impeach Bush, we get Cheney. Impeach Cheney, we get Hastert. Impeach Hastert, we get . . . well, eventually it comes down to the cabinet, and after that . . . . Well, how many impeachments until the 2008 election? If (when) we get a majority, perhaps even enough to override vetoes, then we make GW a lame duck president and his hands are tied.
3. Impeach Bush, we get Cheney. Impeach Cheney, we get President Pelosi, not Hastert. It's pretty clear that Impeachment only takes place with a Democratic majority, and Hastert would no longer be in the food chain. Whether Pelosi takes up that position is another matter. Perhaps, like Carl Albert during the Nixon era, she will determine that it is not to the good of the country, in the event she is the next in line, that she take the position.
4. Much as I would like to see Condi Rice running the country in her power leather dress and high-heeled boots, making the fat-cat white Republicans kiss her ring to get anything done, I don't trust her as far as I could throw Dennis Hastert.
4. Not sure what this has to do with impeachment, honestly. Rice is not likely to be in the equation regardless, see point #3.
The first 100 days (harking back to FDR) should be devoted to restoring the Bill of Rights and adopting a sensible foreign policy.
You and I are in agreement here, but I would strongly argue that Impeachment and prosecution of administration officials is a major step in accomplishing any restoration of our rights and a sensible foreign policy. A lame duck Bush may be, but not holding him accountable for the lies and warmongering, crimes that strike directly at the heart of our republic and have significantly weakened our ability to address real military threats elsewhere in the war, is a disasterous policy of appeasement and forgiveness.
UPDATE: neroden makes an excellent point in the comments zeroing-in on just why it is vital that accountability return to our checks and balances:
Bush and Cheney have a record of violating the law.
We will be unable to restore the rule of law without the threat of impeachment. The Congress will pass its laws, and Bush/Cheney will ignore them.
Impeachment changes that.
UPDATE II: Let's quickly look at a couple of indicative numbers comparing public opinion of the Clinton impeachment vs prospects for a Bush impeachment.
In
one well-referenced poll in August, 1998, respondents were asked:
"If he does not resign, do you think Congress should or should not impeach Clinton and remove him from office?"
The results:
Should impeach 25
Should not 69
No opinion 6
There was not even a plurality of support for the Republicans' Impeachment crusade. By comparison, Pres. Clinton's approval during the same time period was in the 60's.
Forward to Bush: Democrats.com
reported on a poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet (and conducted by Ipsos) which asked
"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."
The results? 50% agreed, 42% disagreed. This is
twice the support for impeachment proceedings, and this poll was in
2005 prior to all the 'lies' that have become public the last few months. Naysayers are completely overlooking the fact that the public is not only 'not happy' with Bush's actions, they are outraged that he lied.