Impeachment
George Bush might deserve impeachment (I am on the record of repeatedly calling him a criminal) but impeachment is not a wise policy option for the new Democratic Congress. Good discussion on that here. But another Kossack argues today that impeachment shouldn't be taken off the table. His argument is simple: if George Bush has claimed for himself "inherent" powers, added signing statements to legislation, and essentially reserved the right to be above the law, why would he or his administration allow themselves to be subpoenaed and incriminated by Democratic committee chairs? He further argues that the courts wouldn't be able to force BushCo to comply because they rely on executive power to enforce their decisions. The courts would have to tell Congress to enforce the law using their only available tool: impeachment. I think this is a compelling argument, but it is completely dependent on King George living up to that pegorative appellation. In other words, there would have to be an acute constitutional crisis, instead of the slow-moving one that began with the Bush vs. Gore decision.
A few years back I watched a series on PBS about Watergate and one of the judges (or was it a Congressman? I forget) recalled a moment when the courts ordered Nixon to hand over the Oval Office tapes. He said something to the effect that the Constitution "wavered" because Nixon, of course, controlled the army. Of course, Watergate avoided a constitutional crisis precisely because the system worked the way it was designed to. That is what makes George Bush so criminal: his disregard for the Constitution of the United States. Now impeachment is a political tool, no doubt. That means Congress is not obligated to invoke it. But if George Bush defies Congressional oversight and doesn't back down, I think Congress has no choice but to impeach him. And if that happens, there are three outcomes: He is impeached, he is not impeached, or he refuses to be impeached. The last outcome I won't speculate on because in my heart I feel this is exactly what radical conservatives desire because it will give them license to start eliminating liberals who are trying to take down their president. The first outcome would also likely involve the impeachment of Cheney leaving us with President Pelosi. I haven't researched it, but I'm sure this conspiracy theory is out there in the right-wing blogosphere. As for the second outcome, there wouldn't be enough votes to impeach Bush, and that too would be bad news for Republicans in 2008. How are the American people expected to react to a situation where a president refuses to abide by Congress, but Congress doesn't have the votes to impeach him? The votes blocking impeachment would be Republican, possibly with Joe Lieberman going along for the ride (couldn't resist that one). Bad year to be a Republican, 2008.
This has been an abstract discussion that is wholly dependent on events that have not and may never transpire. But I think it is useful to look at the boundaries of Congressional oversight in 2007. That's why the blogger at Daily Kos called it "The nexus between oversight and impeachment." Precisely. Its on the table, as far as I'm concerned, and hopefully that will be enough to deter Bush from further ruining America to save his pride.