The facts that would seem to argue in favor of pushing impeachment include an NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll released November 10th showing 57 percent of Americans believe Bush deliberately misled them in making his case for war, while 35 percent think he provided accurate information. And a Zogby International poll released November 4th found that 53 percent of Americans want Congress to consider impeaching Bush if he did not tell the truth about the reasons for war.
An Ipsos Public Affairs poll released on October 11 found 50 percent favoring impeachment if Bush lied about the war. The poll also broke the results down by political party. A full 72 percent of Democrats and those leaning Democrat, a month ago, favored impeachment.
If you subscribe to the view that the Republicans have done a better job of appealing to their own base, you'll want the Democrats to take into consideration the opinions of the 72 percent among the ranks of their voters and potential voters who want Bush impeached.
So, it does seem likely that the first Congress Member to introduce articles of impeachment will become something of a national hero and receive a rather large outpouring of gratitude, volunteers, and cash.
On the other hand, endless discussions on this topic that I've had in the real world and online suggest that the Democrats' failure thus far to push for impeachment is contributing to cynicism and distrust of both parties. If you cannot demand impeachment for the highest crime imaginable (taking a nation to war on the basis of lies, lies formally and feloniously told to Congress on March 18, 2003) then you can never impeach - unless impeachment is reserved as a tool for handling sexual matters. It is this failure to push for impeachment now, when a more appropriate case for it cannot be imagined, that has people calling the Democrats spineless.
Beyond the 53 percent of Americans who think impeachment makes sense if Bush lied about the war, many Americans want Bush and Cheney impeached for other reasons - in fact, a long list of other reasons that presents a cumulative indictment of this administration that was unimaginable to most of us five years ago. The list includes:
" The gross negligence that contributed to 9-11 and to the suffering that followed hurricane Katrina;
" A war that has made the world much less safe and world opinion of the United States much lower;
" The 2000 Supreme Court coup and the 2004 Ohio election theft;
" The elimination of basic rights and liberties through the PATRIOT Act;
" The manufacturing and purchasing of propaganda disguised as independent news;
" The use of chemical weapons in Fallujah;
" The use of depleted uranium in Iraq;
" The use of and open defense of torture;
" The exposure of an undercover CIA agent;
" The systematic destruction of workers' rights;
" The elimination of jobs;
" The dangerous escalation of environmental destruction;
" The massive transfer of wealth to the wealthy;
" The burdening of future generations with incredible financial debts.
But if the case for impeachment is as powerful - even overdetermined - as I've made out, then why isn't it happening? Are there perhaps wiser reasons for restraint?
Well, one reason is that the Democrats are in the minority. They might look foolish if they proposed impeachment now, rather than in 2007 when they may have a majority and be able to really do something.
Or so I've been told. But by that logic the Dems should simply go home and nap until 2007. Almost every bill and resolution introduced by Democrats is doomed to failure. But they go on introducing them, co-sponsoring them, voting for them, and losing, and shouting about it to anyone who will listen. And rightly so! Why should anyone vote the Democratic Party into a majority if the Democrats provide no indication of what they are trying to do, of what they might succeed at if they had a majority?
And who says no Republicans will join a push for impeachment? On Wednesday, Congressman Kucinich's Resolution of Inquiry into the White House Iraq Group picked up the votes in committee of two Republicans and failed because two Democrats refused to show up and vote. If that's any indication of what we can expect from Democrats when they have the majority, we might as well leave them in the minority.
If a Democrat really wanted to push impeachment only after winning a majority, then he or she would do very well to publicly announce tomorrow "If we win a majority in 2006, my first act in 2007 will be to introduce articles of impeachment. Who's with me?" An informal support list could be built, and the American public could know that a political party existed that was ready to speak for them - albeit two years from now.
The primary reason weighing against making such an announcement is also the primary reason weighing against introducing impeachment now, namely that whoever stuck their neck out on this would have it attacked by Republicans and the media.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).