Return of the 'I-Word'

Liberal columnist Joe Conason writes in the New York Observer: "Until Mr. Bush openly proclaimed as commander in chief that he can brush aside the law, cries for impeachment were heard only on the political fringe, although most Americans have long since realized that he misled America into war. Much as he is disliked and disdained by liberals, even they have shown little enthusiasm for impeachment. In addition to the obvious obstacle of a Republican-controlled Congress, there appeared to be no firm proof of an offense that justified such action. To mention the word was to be dismissed -- even by people who believe that this President may well have committed 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' . . .

"As political strategy and as public policy, the impeachment of Mr. Bush is an unappealing prospect. (Besides, if he could be thrown out somehow, who would want Dick Cheney to succeed him?) And yet, the actions and attitudes of this President raise the question of how else we can preserve the bedrock principles of a democratic republic."

Even conservative Jonah Goldberg , writing in the National Review Online, is talking about impeachment -- except he's kidding.

"In the wake of the revelation that President Bush ordered secret surveillance of some Americans -- without a warrant or statutory authority -- some commentators are suggesting that his presidency is in dire trouble. Well, I have one idea for a pick-me-up that will put his approval ratings into at least the mid-60s: Impeach him. . . .

"The main reason Bush's poll numbers would skyrocket if he were impeached is that at the end of the day the American people will support what he did. The legal defense of Bush's ongoing use of warrantless wiretaps is debatable. But the political case for what he did is rock-solid."

Another Grievance

And it's not just the spying scandal that is upsetting Bush's most ardent Congressional critics and provoking the I-word.

The Associated Press reports: "Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., called Tuesday for Congress to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney, saying they misled lawmakers on the decision to go to war in Iraq.

"Conyers, the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, introduced resolutions creating a panel to investigate the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war and separate measures censuring Bush and Cheney. . . .

"Republican National Committee spokeswoman Ann Marie Hauser said if Conyers 'spent half the time condemning terrorism that he does condemning the President of the United States, he would be a credible voice in the war on terror.' "

Conyers released a Democratic staff report that concludes that "there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice-President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration. . . .

"While these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable misconduct, because the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have blocked the ability of Members to obtain information directly from the Administration concerning these matters, more investigatory authority is needed before recommendations can be made regarding specific Articles of Impeachment."

Why Not Ask?

Is it time for mainstream news organizations to start asking the public how they feel about impeachment?