Considering impeachment

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Digby makes a strong case:

Has there ever been a president who deserved it more? I don't think so. Looking at this as someone who believes that until we hold them accountable for their crimes, these zombie crooks will keep doing this over and over again until our country is unrecognizable, my instinct is to scream it from the rafters. But I'm still not convinced that the Democrats should try to impeach. The problem for me is threefold and it has nothing to do with the merits of the case or the desirability of doing it. It's about the political landscape.

Read on, of course. The threefold problem is indeed a major obstacle, so much so that impeachment more than likely wouldn't go anywhere. It would at most be a "symbolic" act. Does that make it "worthwhile"? Would it hold Bush "accountable"? Or would a "failed" impeachment let them "off the hook"?

In short, should the Dems pursue impeachment?

I think that's a question we all need to be asking ourselves. What do you think? Let me know.

**********

Digby also asks: "What's the alternative?" Is there a suitable one? If impeachment is bound to fail, what else should the Dems be doing?

More investigating, I would suggest. More hearings. More subpoenas. On everything.

**********

One quibble: I'm not so sure that Bush is the president in history most deserving of impeachment. What about Nixon?

Again, what do you think?