The stupidest most illogical reason that I hear for not pursuing impeachment charges against Bush or Cheney or Gonzales or anyone else for that matter is that it “would look partisan and petty and retribution for the partisan and petty impeachment of Clinton”.
To that, I say bullshit.
If you (the abstract “you”, of course) want to argue that we don’t have the votes, or that there isn’t enough time, or that the public would rather have investigations go on in the background while real bold legislation is being pursued, or that there are other bigger more pressing matters, I can accept that. I don’t necessarily agree with many (or maybe not any) of these reasons, but I at least can accept them.
But this whole line of crap that “impeachment is forever tainted” will make me want to scream. Does anyone honestly think that if a Democratic administration member did ANYTHING even remotely close to any of the myriad of things that Gonzales, Bush, Cheney or anyone else has done that the word “impeachment for the sake of the rule of law” won’t be dripping from every republican, talking meatstick and corporate owned major media publication nonstop?
If you don’t think so, just remember what Clinton was impeached over, who controls the message and who can’t message their way out of a paper bag.
There are a myriad of reasons why impeaching Gonzales is a slam dunk, and would restore confidence in Democratic leadership in Congress, as well as raise the profile of the Democratic led Congressional investigations (not to mention lend credibility to the investigations) and raise the approval of Congressional Democrats among those who think that some or many are not willing to stand up to this administration. As for the reasons to impeach Gonzales (just in case Senator Dodd needs more convincing), well, I alone have laid out a few reasons here and here and here and here and here and here and here.
Impeachment is a very serious thing – and should not be taken lightly. It is very likely that one of the main reasons why impeachment was deliberately rammed through the House in the late 1990s was to reduce it to the “cheap political theater” that it is now known as. Or, maybe it was a side benefit to some other reason.
But the bottom line is that the word “impeachment” is viewed as taboo to many people because of the hyper partisan nonsensical political theater that was Clinton’s impeachment. And it is all too convenient of an excuse for those who don’t want to take a stand against some of the most corrupt and sinister people ever to serve in such high offices here in the United States government.
However, I think that just the opposite is true here. We have so many reasons - valid, imperative reasons, to impeach Gonzales that NOT to do so is what will forever cheapen the power of impeachment. If not Gonzales, if not now, then please tell me what could EVER be the case for bringing impeachment charges against anyone? Why wouldn’t the argument down the road be “if Gonzales wasn’t impeached, with all of the evidence that the Democratic Congress said they had, then why should XXXXX be impeached over something that clearly does not rise to the same level?”
It’s about time that more people who are supposed to know better realize that unless impeachment is used now against Gonzales, there will never (hopefully) be a better reason to pursue impeachment. By doing so, it will (1) restore integrity to the impeachment process and (2) put an end to this stupid lazy nonsensical excuse once and for all.
It’s a no-brainer.