The Ethics of Impeachment

Rosie O'Donnell has called for the impeachment of the president. Now he's really in trouble.

On this morning's episode of The View, Rosie O'Donnell said that someone in Congress should call for the impeachment of George W. Bush. She meant it, if I'm reading her correctly, in a somewhat pro forma way -- as a way of making a statement of protest against the war.

But if you're going to do that, why not go all the way and actually impeach the bastard?

As I've written in here before (most notably in my somewhat less-than-totally-coherent blog item written rather hastily last night immediately after the State of the Union address), I've gone back and forth on the subject of impeaching the president. In 2005 I thought it was probably a necessity. Right after the midterm elections I thought that maybe having a Democratic Congress might be enough of a brake on this president that impeachment with only two years left to go in his term might not be necessary.

Now, as I've said, I'm not so sure. I think impeachment, depending on the events of the next few months, is now a real possibility.

I touched on this last night, but I'll say it again because it bears repeating. If the Democrats in Congress were to attempt to impeach George W. Bush, his fate would be in the hands of the senators of his own party. Republican senators abandoned Nixon, so he was forced to resign. Democratic senators stood by Bill Clinton, so he remained in office.

So that's the big question: what will Republican senators do in the event that Bush is impeached and brought to trial? How will they vote?

Keep in mind a few salient facts. The American public now no longer supports either this president or this war. And there are going to be no less than 21 Republican Senators up for reelection in 2008. If the Democrats were to snag a significant number of those seats they might be able to hold on to control of Congress for a generation. And those 21 Republican Senators know it.

Also keep in mind that a number of Republicans, in and out of Congress, actually blame George W. Bush for the loss of the Senate. They believe that if Bush had fired Donald Rumsfeld as SecDef three weeks ahead of the election, the GOP might have maintained control of the Senate. They feel betrayed.

Those 21 Senators just might have a tough decision to make in the near future. Do they remain loyal to a president whose policies have been an absolute disaster for this country and who just might cost them the majority in Congress for the next 20 years, or do they throw him overboard in an attempt to save their own political skins?

My guess is that the next six months will tell. If the situation in Iraq is markedly better by June, then the president will probably get to serve out his term. But if the situation in Iraq has deteriorated even further by then, I think you can probably count on impeachment proceedings beginning this Summer.

And Bush's fate will be in the hands of 21 men who have no reason to be loyal to him whatsoever.

Tom Moran