Impeachment: Political Weapon of Last Resort

The problem with impeachment proceedings is that we do not want to encourage a trend of impeaching Presidents. Gingrich's House was way out of line in doing what it did to Clinton, and though the sins of Bush relate directly to his power as the Chief Executive and probably do rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors (unlike dalliance with a female intern), still it is a power that should be invoked sparingly.

I realize that a lot of Democrats and even some Republicans have their dander up. Nobody likes to be lied to, and they especially do not like being lied to when it means they are tricked into sending American GI Joes and Janes into harm's way. And, although the Republicans set a very bad example in picking up impeachment proceedings as a way of distracting a nation and gaining political leverage to derail an administration -- that does not mean that the Democrats should follow their example.

The frequent employment of the impeachment process in a democracy endangers the democracy's ability to reflect the will of the people. It should only be employed where it is clear that the executive has committed treason or is clearly shown to have been tampering with the Democratic process. Nixon, for example, got caught red handed at directly tampering with the Democratic process. Clinton's impeachment was just a vicious form of politics since lying, even lying under oath, about an extramarital affair has pretty much zilch to do with the Democratic process. Bush's sins obviously are more like Nixon's than Clinton's and it is fairly clear at this point that he violated the protected civil liberties of citizens. This is not, however, the first time that Americans have been led into a war based on flimsy evidence or downright lies. It is pretty clear that Spain did not sink the Maine, which was very well understood at the time from an inspection of the hull -- and they had complied with every ultimatum we made, but we went to war anyway. It is also very clear that Johnson knowingly lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident in order to get a war making resolution during the Viet Nam war.

Although Bush's doctored intelligence reports on Iraq do have an aroma similar to that of the accusation that Poles attacked a broadcasting station which was used to trigger WWII, it is not quite the same. As a result, I believe that it would be in the best interest of the nation to simply wait Bush out -- approximately 70% of America has figured out that he is not to be trusted, and in a Democracy that pretty much destroys your ability to do really, really bad things.
The other problem is that it will be a major distraction unlikely to develop enough votes to get the job done anyway. So I would say, Congress would better serve the American people by wielding the power of the purse, isolating Bush, and curtailing, with investigations, the more overt transgressions of his appointees. We have demonstrated that the lower echelon political operatives of the White House are no longer terribly interested in falling on their swords to protect the Administration. As a result, the White House can be held in check by investigations.
I would liken the situation to Iraq. We now know that Saddam was being held in check by the combined effect of UN inspections, US Airforce fly-overs, and economic sanctions. I believe that the Bush Administration can likewise be kept in check by the combined effect of Congress exercising the power of the purse, Congressional Committee investigations, and lawsuits by the State Governments to challenge Federal Agency malfeasance. That is a much safer route to take than an impeachment struggle.