The Case Against Impeachment

Posted by Mission Man at 10:03 AM

For several months, but especially since the conviction of I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby on obstruction of justice and perjury charges, a number of liberal bloggers and diarists have been calling for the impeachment(s) of Dick Cheney and/or George W. Bush. However, I believe that it is in the best interest of the liberals/progressives/Democrats to leave these folks exactly where they are for the next 22 months.

Why? One reason is that, as much as it disgusts me to say this, the time frame for impeachment has passed. Unfortunately, the time for impeachment was in '06, two years before the next presidential election. Unfortunately, that was impossible with a Republican Congress, but I don't see how things are much better now.Looking at things in a realistic manner, if the House were to pass articles of impeachment now, it would do nothing more than create a firestorm of controversy, with no realistic chance of success.

Let's face it: there definitely aren't enough votes in the Senate to convict. Now that could change if something even worse is discovered about this administration's corruption, but given what we already know and the inability of the Dems to capitalize thus far, I don't see that as likely. Instead, as a result of the lack of votes at present that would be necessary to convict, I think that trying to impeach now could easily backfire on the Dems, as it would give the Republicans ample ammunition to say that all we were interested in is smearing the "good name" of GWB and his administration in an effort to gain political capital just before the 2008 election. In a perverse way, this could easily make voters lean the other way and forget the malfeasances committed by the administration over the past six years. Mind you, just writing these two paragraphs has made me feel the need to vomit over what's happened to this country and its political system over the past forty years or so, but it's still true.

Even if an impeachment were successful now, we across the aisle must look at the possible consequences. Unless both were convicted, in which case Speaker Nancy Pelosi would be elevated to the Presidency, the options for the Dems are bad. If Bush were convicted but not Cheney, that would move Darth Vader into the White House. Is that something we can live with for x number of months? If Cheney is convicted but not Bush, then Bush would be allowed to nominate his choice for replacement, and Senatorial confirmation would be almost certain. This would allow the Republicans to move into the V.P.'s office immediately someone who could very well be on or aid the Republican ticket in 2008. In other words, to quote an old proverb, be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.

The best reason not to impeach is this: Right now, it's open season (to use a term Cheney understands) for the Democrats. With this pair in office, everytime they open their mouths it should provide more ammunition for any and all of the Democratic candidates to use over the next months. Let's face it, the best thing the Democrats have going is the combination of the incompetence and corruption this administration has displayed during its six-plus years in office, aided and abetted by a Congress completely controlled by Republicans for four of those years. They sure can't run on their own record of inactivity and passivity. If you can't win an election when the other side gives you the kind of ammo that Bush and Cheney can provide over the next few months, then perhaps you shouldn't be in politics to begin. Ask John Kerry.