The "I" Word.

Well, it finally happened this week. CNN used the "I" word.

I have to admit that I (reluctantly) accepted the arguments against impeachment of the moronic monkey-boy currently inhabiting the Oval Office. Namely, that impeaching Bush would make the Democrats seem petty and partisan; or that it would make impeachment seem like a mere political tool, rather than the rarely-used check on the President's authority it's supposed to be, if two presidents in a row got impeached; and, of course, the single strongest argument against impeachment: Dick Cheney.

That said, it should be mentioned that the people who first voiced those arguments at me were the same people who felt that impeaching Clinton for an extramarital blowjob was clearly what a sober reading of the constitution demanded. Call me crazy, but somehow I don't see that someone who thinks sex is a constitutional crisis, but thinks we should look the other way when the president defrauds the entire country into an illegal war, and subverting the actual constitution can really be described as a dispassionate observer of presidential offenses.

The litmus test for impeachment is supposed to hang on one single question: has the person holding the office violated his or her oath of office? The presidential oath of office states:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Think about that for a second. Preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States. How, exactly does an extramarital blowjob constitute a failure to preserve, protect, or defend the constitution of the United States? On the other hand, it is clear to me that subverting the writ of habeas corpus, on its own, constitutes a failure to protect the constitution, and everything it stands for. If that were his only offense, which it isn't, that would be enough for me to say "impeach the bastard."

I mentioned earlier that I was on board with some of the arguments against impeachment. It's time I revised that position. Frankly, if the things Bush has done fail to qualify as impeachable, what does? Well, if we go by historical precedent: blowjobs, B & E, and botching reconstruction (although technically, Nixon wasn't impeached for that B & E, it's clear that he would have been, had he not resigned).

Basically, we have a destructive buffoon of a president who's talking about going into Iran and Syria, not to mention the 20,000 troops he wants to send into Iraq. He's basically thumbing his nose at Congress and saying: "yeah? Well, how are you gonna stop me?"

Congress decides where the funding goes. They approve the budget. They can, and should, cut off funding for pretty much anything Bush decides he wants to do. This will have political consequences, but as an American citizen, I'm beyond the point of caring. It's the right thing to do, and they should do it. But frankly, I'm not sure that the consequences will be as bad as everyone fears they will be. This troop surge is roughly as popular as a guy with a rash at a nudist colony; and let's be honest, the war itself isn't doing much better. But even if it weren't, cutting funding to this war is still the right thing to do.

The other way is impeachment. If Bush has decided that he's the King, or the Decider, or whatever; and that he can expand this war the country wants out of even if Congress says "no," we have exactly one way to stop him: to knock him the hell out of office. Yes, it's extreme; yes, we'll be stuck with Cheney as our next president, but it's still the right thing to do.