Thursday, March 16, 2006

Censure, impeachment,...why not?

This is really odd. George W. Bush is responsible for Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Iraq, the Halliburton mess, illegal spying, coddling people who blow the cover of CIA operatives, and the disastrous Katrina response, and Republicans think that they can score points on criticizing some Democrats real desire for impeachment or censure of the man?

The threat of impeachment, Mr. Weyrich suggested, was one of the only factors that could inspire the Republican Party's demoralized base to go to the polls. With "impeachment on the horizon," he wrote, "maybe, just maybe, conservatives would not stay at home after all."

For weeks, Republicans have taken to conservative Web sites and talk radio shows to inveigh against the possibility, however remote, that Democrats could impeach Mr. Bush if they gained control of Congress. Mr. Feingold's censure proposal fell far short of a demand for impeachment. Most Democrats in the Senate distanced themselves from it, concerned that they would be tagged by Republicans as soft on terrorism. But the censure proposal provided Republicans an opening.

"This is such a gift," the conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh told listeners on his syndicated radio program on Monday, saying the Democrats were fulfilling his predictions. "They have to go back to this impeachment thing," he said.

The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, a conservative standard-bearer, echoed the thought. "We'd like to congratulate the Wisconsin Democrat on his candor," its editors wrote Wednesday in a column headlined "The Impeachment Agenda." The Republican National Committee sent the editorial out to its e-mail list of 15 million supporters.

All the 2 out of 3 people who are likely to refer to Bush as incompetent, idiot, or liar want (HT Atrios )is the truth to come out, and for accountability.

They're ahead of most Dems on this issue.

The Repubs can be joyful on this only at their peril.

Follow that last link by the way; people are now saying Bush is more out of touch than Reagan was in '87, when it was obvious he was going senile.

Update: More people want Bush censored than don't. And that's with a media poo-pooing the story.

No comments: