Impeachment

Josh Marshall, founder of TPM, is the latest blogger to drop his resistance to calling for Impeachment of this utterly corrupt, criminal administration.

I have one point of disagreement however. Josh introduces his post by asserting that, in his mind, a practical reason against Impeachment is the fact that we're so close to 2008 and the end of Bush's term. To be fair, Josh characterizes this as a "minor" reason.

With all due respect, the fact that 2008 is so close is one of the principal reason in favor of initiating Impeachment proceedings now.

Stated simply, Bush should be Impeached, not despite the looming 2008 elections, but because of them.

More than anyone, Josh has pointed out that the underlying criminality in the U.S. Attorney Purge scandal was the Republican attempts at voter suppression amongst likely Democratic constituencies generally, and minority votes specifically.

Just this week, the WashPo revealed how far Karl Rove went in politicizing every aspect of the government, going so far as to give political briefings to the peace corps!

One would be naive to assume that the GOP machine isn't continuing these efforts vigorously, now, as we speak, to steal the 2008 election, both on the presidential as well as congressional and senatorial levels.

And that's assuming there is a 2008 election. You know, it used to just be the fringe bloggers who warned that Bush would just cancel the 2008 elections. But arch-conservative constitutional scholar Bruce Fein was on Countdown last night, and pointed out that Bush and Cheney have claimed the right to impose martial law within the U.S., on the premise that the entire country is a battlefield in the war-on-terra.

Those bloggers are seeming a little less finge-y these days. Who'd believe a sitting President would declare martial law and cancel an election so he could hold onto power? Well, who'd believe a sitting President would claim that the Department of Justice is prohibited from pursuing contempt citations referred to it by the United States Congress? Who'd believe that a sitting Vice President would claim to not be part of the Executive Branch, except when he wants to shield himself with executive privilege (at which point he claims that he is part of the Executive Branch) and at other times claim that he's some phantom 4th branch of government altogether? Who'd believe that an Administration would assert the right to undefinitely detain American citizens without any due process whatsoever?

No one has ever gone broke taking the over vote on BushCo's mendacity, audacity and blatant criminality.

A lot of shit has gone down over these last 6-1/2 years, and we still don't know what was so fucked up about the domestic spying program that it prompted the entire top tier of the Justice Department, including Crisco, to threaten to resign. Do you think Cheney will ever let any of that see the light of day if he has anything to say about it? That's why they have to guarantee either a Republican succession or, failing that, an illegal continuation of the Bush Administration. Their last hope would be any Democratic Administration that wins in '08 deciding to "move on" and refuse to dig into all of this (the way the Democrats dropped the ball in '92 after Iran Contra). In that regard, ironically, Bush/Cheney's best hope for a Democratic successor is probably Hillary Clinton!

We need Impeachment now to get these issues on the table, so that when the GOP attempt the voter suppresion/stealing efforts that they undoubtedly will, even their Beltway syncophants and court stenographers at the WashPo, NYTimes, MSGOP et al will be forced to take note, even if just to say "can you believe they're still trying to do this, while Bush/Cheney are being Impeached for doing it last time?"

The general impression of the Clinton Administration amongst a large number of the non-political-junkie class (and a disturbing number of even political junkies) is one of widespread scandal and corruption. This, despite the fact that only something like one conviction ever came out of those 8 years.

Clearly, the public cannot distinguish between actual scandal and the repeated, relentless accusations of scandal (no matter how unfounded). The public needs to see front page stories of another contempt citation, or accusation of perjury every fucking day.

Is there such a thing as "scandal fatigue"? Sure. But who does that adversely affect? The party being accused of all of the scandals, not the party doing the accusing.

The GOP lost seats during the Clinton Administration because they threatened to shut down the government rather than pass legislation that would actually help large numbers of people, not because of their relentless unfounded attacks on Bill Clinton.