Readers responded overwhelmingly to Friday's pro and con commentaries on impeachment. A solid majority who wrote in are in favor of impeachment [1], but many of our readers are against it [2]. A third group is comprised of readers who are either undecided, ambivalent or offered a more nuanced parsing of the terms of the debate. [3] Also on Friday, as her last act as a member of Congress, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., introduced articles of impeachment [4] against George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice. You can read her full statement [5] which, according to her staff, she was not allowed to read on the House floor.

We Must Impeach

Impeachment is the right of the party in majority. The Democrats have an obligation to the American electorate to begin investigations into a variety of areas of improper conduct to determine if "high crimes" have been committed by the president of the United States. Just as the party in power felt that obligation in the Clinton administration, so too the party in power must pursue this course of action.

Bob Philbin

— — —

David, are you suggesting that the incoming Congress can't walk and chew gum at the same time? Anyone who has a family, runs a household and holds down a job knows about time management. And now I hear that Congress will actually be in session 5 days a week. Imagine that! Impeachment may be painful, but so was my mastectomy. Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet to get back on the road to health whether it’s on a personal or a national level.

Paulette Williams

— — —

I believe this debate is a moot point. The Democrats must investigate what has happened over the last six years. The administration will refuse to cooperate with these investigations, probably to the point of ignoring congressional subpoenas. When this happens, if the Democrats back down it will be a clear signal to the Cheney cabal that they have achieved their goal, a k a total control. In effect, it will be the end of our current (former?) system of government.

The Democrats will have to pursue impeachment, because it is quite simply the only remedy open to them. Like it or not, this will be the agenda for the next two years or there will be no more United States.

Lincoln Bormann

— — —

I disagree with David Corn's arguments. His main points, that it would distract from a positive Democrat agenda, and that it would lose the independent and moderate vote in 2008, are not convincing. On the first point, I think the investigations and impeachment can run parallel to a positive Democrat agenda in the context of an independent prosecutor to handle impeachment investigations. It should be kept in mind that the reason this president has not used the veto power is that the legislative branch has been controlled by his supporters. Starting in 2007, we will doubtless see presidential vetos of more progressive legislative efforts. We will also see disappointing compromises in legislation designed to avoid the veto. Many progressives are of course anxious to move forward with a positive agenda. But this president shows no promise of supporting that agenda, and the Democrat majority will fall short of overriding the veto power.

I believe, like Jennifer Van Bergen, that there is a moral vacuum that cannot be repaired without impeachment investigations. There is probably no president in American history who was more deserving of impeachment than the current one. Those who fear the effect on the 2008 elections might also think about the effect that sustaining the moral vacuum would have on a large portion of those who have supported the Democratic party. I, for one, am highly disenchanted with the Democrats, but I had no where else to go. In the past, disenchantment with both parties has led on occasion to voters supporting doomed third party efforts.

While this may seem off topic to some, I must express my deeper feelings that our two-party system, with both parties largely influence by corporate financial interests, is a failed system. Why is this relevant? I believe a system of proportional representation would allow for direct representation of the broad political spectrum. This would alleviate the fear of losing the "centrist" voter. It would allow for more honest campaigning with less of the smoke and mirrors of two major parties trying to appeal to 51 percent of the electorate. Coalitions would be formed where they should be formed, directly in congress, and not these perversions where, for example, moderate secular Republicans find themselves weirdly aligned with bible thumping theocrats. The Democrats who fear the impeachment process fear it because it would take place within this perverse two-party system where they might lose some votes in the middle of nowhere.

Berry Ives

— — —

David Corn argues against impeachment because he writes that it will take the focus off ending the war. I believe it is the only way to end the war. Anyone can see that even with the report of the Iraq Study Group the President and Congress are making no moves to end the war. I have no doubt that the new "Democrat" Congress will pass the appropriations bill which includes funds to continue the war until 2008. The voters want this war to end NOW.

Elizabeth Lockyear

— — —

Why is it that every time the Democrats think of doing anything, or even when the Republicans just think they're going to do something, they yell, "They're playing POLITICS again!" Yet before the Republicans do anything, they're quick to reiterate "THIS ISN'T POLITICAL!"

The article says "An impeachment campaign would detract from the Iraq debate." Like the Democrats are idiots who can only do one thing at a time! Destroying Medicare, the environment, human rights, and all the rest Bush and his rubber stamp congress have done to this country and the world never stopped them from pulling troops off the hot trail of Bin Laden after 9/11, and invading Iraq.

Impeaching Bush is nothing like the Clinton impeachment. To get Clinton, after practically digging to China to find an excuse to do so, and spending millions or billions of taxpayer money on the effort, they finally ended up resorting to his sex life, then put him in the embarrassing position where the majority of people would have lied about it, before they were able to create an 'impeachable offense."

Everything in this article is nothing more than just more republican propaganda. If we're dumb enough to fall for it, and not demand Bush and Cheney—and Rice—be impeached, we really do deserve whatever we end up with.

George Charleston

---

Don't Start Impeachment

I agree with your assessment. As much as the criminal in office deserves to be prosecuted, the move would be lost on a gullible American public who didn't have the sense to vote him out of office in 2004. Democratic priorities should include dismantling the Patriot Acts; ending warrantless surveillance; repealing the tax cuts to the rich; enforcing civil rights violations by major city police departments; and confronting global warming. And of course, getting the hell out of Iraq.

Reggie Haley

— — —

You are 100 percent on the money. Wasting the next two years on a effort that has zero chance of succeeding will do nothing but give the GOP another major talking point for 2008. If you thought this last Congress was "do nothing" this would be "less than nothing."

History will judge W as one of our three worst presidents (I'd rank him alongside Harding and Buchanan). His mix of arrogance, hypocrisy, stubbornness and just plain ignorance are hard to top.

Alan Larris

— — —

Rather than wasting time and energy on impeaching Bush—a project that is not likely to succeed because its promoters have misjudged the mood of the electorate—progressives would do a far greater service to this nation if they made sure that the neocon architects of this war had their intellectual balls publicly and permanently removed. The swing voters in the middle, those who decided the last two elections, need to understand that an aberrant group of true believers hijacked American foreign policy and set off on a truly dangerous crusade to remake the Middle East. They—the neocons—must never have this opportunity again. Making this clear to the American electorate is far more important than impeaching Bush.

Stevan Allred

— — —

Looking at both sides , I have to support David Corn on this one. I don't think it's in the nation's interest to get bogged down in another protracted conflict, albeit a political one. Democrats have been more than gracious in victory and have a great deal of good will with the people of this country. To engage in impeachment proceedings would squander that good will and would seem the kind of petty, vindictive behavior that Republicans have turned into an art form. I think that George W. Bush's legacy of irrationality, petulance and incompetence will be a more suitable punishment for him. There are far more important things that need to be done. Cleaning up the mess made by the president will keep Democrats very busy for the next two years. For instance, bringing home those 145,000 Americans being held hostage in Iraq by the Bush/neocon policies. The list goes on, but I don't think there room here for them all.

Brian Grinstead

— — —

I agree whole-heartedly that the Dems will self destruct if they try to start an impeachment process. There is no way the party, the Congress or the American people will support it. Heal is the one thing it WON'T do. Let us proceed with a liberal agenda and get some legislation going. We need a record to stand on in '08.

Mary Shulman

— — —

I agree with David. As much as I would like to impeach, try Bush and Cheney for war crimes, it is not practical and politically expedient to do so at this time. Only if Bush decides to bomb Iran, the investigations, and the "100 Hour" Agenda gets vetoed or stalled by the opposition, should we push for impeachment. Only if those three things happen will the country support the call for impeachment and not use it against the Democrats.

Paul Roden

— — —

You make a strong case for impeachment but I strongly disagree that this should be at the top of the agenda for the new Congress. Impeachment is time-consuming and divisive and what we need is Republicans voting with Dems to give us veto-proof legislation. We go your way and we give the House and Senate back in '08. We may give it back anyway on the immigration issue, where we Dems seem to be far away from the sense of the people.

To maintain control we must show measurable progress quickly, on job development/ retention, minimum wage, taxes reduction, ethics, campaign finance reform and many other areas. We don't waste time on the idiot; we fix the problems he created.

Sidney Daniels

---

The Undecided, Ambivalent and Just Nuanced

I agree with David Corn that impeachment could jeopardize Democrats if done incorrectly. It could also play out in our favor since those disgusted with this crew of bandits would like to see justice done, Democrat or not.

You might be suggesting that Democrats can't chew gum and walk at the same time but methinks WE the People are so blinded with anger it almost doesn't matter at this point.

Thanks for giving this some grounded thought.

Danielle S

— — —

I am torn between the opinions of Mr. Corn and Ms. Van Bergen. So much energy would be wasted on impeachment. But I cannot conceive of George Bush escaping punishment for what must be the most heinous slate of crimes ever committed by an American.

Call it revenge, call it recrimination, but Bush must pay a price for how he has caused so much pain and how he has damaged the country he has so damaged. And price must exceed the mere loss of reputation. Call me what you will but Bush must suffer, he must experience pain for the rest of his life.

Dennis McNish

— — —

I agree with David Corn to a certain extent. However, I do think it is extremely important to investigate the abuse of power by this administration. In particular, we need to fully explore the propaganda war led by the administration that got us into the unwise war in Iraq. Corn wrote a book about this, so I assume he knows something about the selling of this war. We need to have an object lesson for future administrations that this will not be tolerated. The abuse of power also extends to the punishing of those who dissented from unsound policy. If the abuses revealed are so egregious that they lead to impeachment, so be it. There is a moral imperative to hold the administration accountable for the deadly mess they have made around the world.

Mary Cali

— — —

Impeachment should be done only if a vast majority (60 percent +) of the American people demand it. Otherwise, let both houses investigate, and hand it over to the new, Democratic Attorney General on January 20, 2009.

Additionally, the Senate should ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court, so Bush, et al. can join Milosevic at The Hague.

Richard Girard

— — —

Both commentators are correct. The U.S. citizenry needs to be forced out of its state of denial, or will learn nothing from its Iraq experience, which would just compound the tragedy. However, for the Democrats to force the issue via impeachment would be a Pyrrhic victory -- Republicans have much more emotional investment in Bush's war than Democrats had in Clinton's sex life, and the citizenry is easily rallied 'round the flag.

The Republican emotional investment, however, makes 'fessing up absolutely critical, for the same reason it's political suicide. I see two ways to resolve this problem, each with advantages.

One -- the Democrats could take a high moral road by not impeaching, but by making a concerted effort to ensure that all US elected and appointed officials (past, present and future) are subject to international law at the ICC. Even if the Republicans manage to fend it off, they will be seen as craven, evasive and villainous. If the effort is successful, the U.S. would have to go through the trauma of war trials and probable convictions—a learning experience we desperately need.

Two -- the Democrats could force impeachment, and pay the price. They'd be right, but they'd become irrelevant. A new party would replace them—possibly a real labor party (the USA is the only developed country without one). Net result, a learning experience and a chance at a party that's really on the left.

National catharsis is an absolute necessity. How it happens is negotiable.

Richard Martin

— — —

 

Corn and Van Bergen are both correct, but Corn slightly more so.  It does not make too much sense to waste most or all of one's political capital on removing a president with only two years to go. However, I think it will soon become obvious that Bush/Cheney cannot be allowed to remain in office for two years. The persons who will have to take the lead will be the members of their own party -- unless they want to lose their own jobs in 2008. It is also never too early for Dems to link their opponents to the administration -- it worked pretty well last month. This will remind them what they will face in 2008, and that Bush must at least be placed in a padded room until then.

Bruce Tonnessen

— — —

You may be right, Jennifer, but as a practical matter it doesn't look like the votes are there.

A better bet might be war crimes trials.

There are a number of high level actors in the current administration, including the president, who've unfortunately laid themselves open to serious charges from one war crimes tribunal or another. And don't forget, "sovereign immunity" is no longer a viable defense. Its protection is routinely stripped from heads of state and others involved in such proceedings.

Sam Thornton