To impeach, or not to impeach?

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 13:29:35 PM MST

As they have previously, Democratic leaders staunchly oppose Kucinich's impeachment effort. They expect to table the resolution by referring it to the Judiciary Committee, where they expect it to die.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyers (D-Md.) suggested yesterday that engaging in a lengthy debate over impeaching Bush in the waning days of his administration is not a productive use of the House's time.

I'm shocked. Shocked.

So, is this a colossal waste of time? Or do we need to impeach to ensure there won't be another law-breaking, Constitutional-trashing administration like Bush's?

Arguments for both sides below the fold...

Yes, they've been very busy, accomplishing almost nothing, because our "government" is led by a cabal of incompetent, dishonest, law-breaking zealots who trashed the country and hold the American people in contempt. They're supported by a rubber stamp Republican Party determined to prevent anything worthwhile from passing, even as the electorate prepares to throw them out of office, while the Democrats, savoring the elections can't find the courage to defend their oaths and just say "enough."

The real reason for this burial is that our Congressional leaders find it embarrassing to admit how thoroughly Bush has beaten them in escaping accountability. They won't even insist on their own Congressional perogatives to demand information from the Administration, let alone try to reestablish the simple concept that no man is above the law. That foundational democratic principle is just not true in America, because George Bush and Dick Cheney deliberately created conditions under which they and their closest advisers are above the law. In fact, with their compliant Attorney General, these people have become their own law.

After surviving Watergate, the country seemed to believe in itself more; we appreciated the brilliance and wisdom of its Constitution, the strength of its institutions. With them, a decent people and vigilant press could right the ship even when its President was corrupt. But somewhere in the deluge of money, the conservatives' assault on government, and the concentration/corruption of our media, we lost a critical mass of patriots, people who understood and cared how it all worked and weren't afraid to fight for it. We became a fearful, cynical nation.

Talking Dog thinks impeachment would be a waste of time:

It's not the substance: the President has committed enough impeachable offenses so that just reading the articles took five hours (and that doesn't begin to come close!) It's the politix of it: Bush's term is, by and large, almost over, and he will be replaced in less than eight months. While I agree that limiting the ability to pardon minions is desirable, that doesn't seem to be the point of this exercise. Nor, for example, is it to restore Congress's Constitutional authority where, for example, a politicized Justice Department won't enforce Congressional subpoenas to investigate Justice Department politicization!

I'm just not sure what the point is; most agree that impeachment will go to committee and die.
Given the success of his Presidential runs, there is simply no reason to assume Dennis knows what he's doing. I just don't see the point of this, particularly in June of the President's last term. And when something that I actually agree with in substance just strikes me as so insanely counterproductive as to be dangerous... I begin to worry...