Impeachment... Oy.

The Seattle Times has reported that Senator Patty Murray and Congressman Jay Inslee, both Democrats from Washington State, are lobbying Washington State Democratic State Senators and Representatives in Olympia to cancel a hearing on a bill which would call for the U.S. House of Representatives to "...investigate and consider impeaching President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney." Yup, Murray and Inslee are against the resolution. The idea is that, if enough state legislatures pass such resolutions, then eventually some Representatives in Washington would begin conducting investigations and draft Articles of Impeachment. Murray and Inslee aren't Democratic light-weights to be sure, and their liberal credentials are pretty reliable - Murray is often criticized by Wing-Nutters for her anti-war positions, and support of social welfare programs.

However, I must admit, I'm inclined to agree with them.

First, as pointed out by one of Murray's staffers in the Seattle Times article, a successful impeachment of Bush would leave Evil Cheney Dark-Heart sitting in the Oval Office. While many joke that he is the de facto President anyway, his influence is mitigated by Bush's ass sitting in the chair, and more recently, by Condolezza Rice's position as Secretary of State. While I'm not a huge fan of Condi, she is a moderating force in the administration. The article makes reference to an effort to impeach both the President and the Veep. However, I'm unaware of such a provision in the Constitution, or of an applicable Judicial interpretation of the Impeachment power. I would assume, then, that to rid ourselves of Bush and Cheney, the House would have to draft two separate articles, and the Senate would have to pass down two convictions, which would leave us with, I assume, Cheney's Vice-Presidential appointee. The chances of getting two articles drafted, and two Senate convictions is very unlikely.

Furthermore, I'm not convinced that Bush has actually broken any laws, specifically. The impeachment is Constitutionally limited to "high crimes and misdemeanors" and as far as I know, President Bush hasn't technically committed any crimes. Which is, of course, not to say that he's acted in good faith - because he hasn't - nor is it to say that he didn't lie his ass off to Congress or the American people - because he did. Unfortunately, what he did do wasn't illegal, as far as I know.

So, assuming that I am correct, and Bush hasn't actually committed any crimes (while in office - he still has that DUI on his record... think he'll give himself a pardon in November 2008?) what will an impeachment get us? Well, not much I'm afraid. It's likely to be viewed as an abuse of power by the House, much like how the Clinton impeachment was viewed by the public - and in the Clinton case, there was at least evidence that he had committed perjury (although, even if true, it certainly didn't warrant impeachment). If Bush is going to be impeached, it had better be based on some pretty stern-stuff. Congress doesn't need another impetus to conduct investigations - it is already conducting them. Throwing impeachment language into the mix isn't helpful, it just galvanizes conservatives.

Unfortunately, Presidential systems make it very difficult to reign in, or remove, executives. Presidents aren't accountable to Legislatures like Prime Ministers are; we don't have votes of no confidence. However, what we do have to work with are Congressional oversight mandates, and the power of the purse - rights that I suggest Congress not allow the President to leech.