Modulator

More Impeachment, or Maybe Not

There is growing grass roots support* for impeachment and some of the Democratic contenders are hinting at it:

On the stump in New Hampshire last week, Democratic presidential contender and former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Bob Graham said that if George W. Bush made false statements that led the nation into war, there were grounds to impeach him.

James Ridgeway, in this Village Voice piece argues that it is unlikely that Bush will be impeached.

His main argument is the obvious one that in this time of lockstep partisanship it is unlikely that the house will pass a bill of impeachment even though only a simple majority is needed:

Gerald Ford called it right when he said after Nixon's ouster, "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

There would have to be visible blood on bush's hands before a 2/3 majority of the senate would vote to impeach.

Ridgeway also suggests that any congress critters considering a move toward impeachment might want look in the mirror:

Speaking of "civil officers" besides the president: During the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, Congress made no effort to investigate and showed little interest in obtaining independent information; instead, it meekly endorsed the resolution to go to war. If there are high crimes and misdemeanors involved, Congress is complicit in them.

Being a polite guy Ridgeway holds the mirror for Graham:

Graham was chair of the intelligence committee and if he thought there was a cover-up under way, everyone else on those committees surely knew what was going on—and none of them did anything.

Maybe we can change out a bunch of these folks, including bush, in 2004.

*Oakland, CA

Posted by Steve on July 24, 2003