Re: Impeachment

I've been listening to the debate about impeachment between Lewis Lapham and Harold Meyerson. While I see that there are enormous practical problems with it (President Cheney? President Hastert? How to get past a Republican congress? How to get 2/3 in the Senate), I still see it as something the Democrats ought to pursue. It may not confer any advantages on the Democrats for '06 or '08, but that's beside the point. The point to me is that, since High Crimes and Misdemeanors aren't spelled out in the Constitution, what we and future generations have to go on is precedent--how the statement has historically been interpreted to decide what is impeachable and what is not. It would be sad indeed, if future Americans were to look back and decide that lying a nation into war, torture, kidnapping, domestic spying, defiying the legislative and judicial branches, and degrading the checks and balances meant to secure the republic were unworthy of impeachment, while lying in a deposition about a blowjob or leaping into a congressionally set impeachment trap merited trial in the Senate.

UPDATE: Actually, Congress, not just congressional Democrats, should pursue the matter. There must be one or two Republicans in Washington who have enough dignity and self respect left to resent all the lying, all the stonewalling, all the criminal assaults on our liberty. Must be? Well, probably not. But it would be nice to think there are.