Warning: this is a somewhat tedious post. Ok ok, it's a reaaally tedious post. It's a post that walks people through the task of impeaching...Alberto Gonzales.
Before I begin, I apologize for my stupid post yesterday criticizing Markos for something he didn't say/do. I was careless with my words, and I didn't pay close enough attention to his actual posts, and I deserved the ripping that I got. Unfortunately, because of my carelessness and stupidity, the argument that I was trying to make became tarnished and somewhat forgotten. So I begin to make the argument again today, and hopefully my own personal foibles won't get in the way.
First, I support impeaching Gonzales. And I'm optimistic about the odds of succeeding. Impeaching Gonzales is in my damn sig line- that's how much I want to see Gonzales out. So as happy as I am to see so many frontpagers and other netizens explicitly call for his impeachment, I feel there's something missing here. Specifically, I feel like some are rushing to the conclusion of impeaching Gonzales without at least thinking through the objections and problems of impeaching anyone, including Gonzales.
There seems to be a feeling that while it is not a good idea to try to impeach George W. Bush, it is a really good idea to try to impeach Alberto Gonzales. Fine, great, welcome to the party. Robert Greenwald made a great three layer bean dip.
But here's the thing- you can't come halfway across the river on impeachment. There's a cover charge to get in this party (sorry for mixing metaphors there, let's just pretend that it's a "river party" :) Impeachment is serious business, and you should be ready for what's ahead. You shouldn't skip through or ignore the logic that's been used to oppose impeachment of Bush, because a lot (if not all) of it applies to Gonzales. Inconsistencies should be addressed.
For all of the frustration and anger that I've hurled at those who don't support the impeachment of Bush, I must admit that having skeptics poke holes in my position is a valuable exercise. It clarifies my thinking and forces me to understand and accept the value judgments I make when calling for impeachment. For example, for the recent impeachment converts- why is it ok to impeach Gonzales for a crime, but not the man who ordered him to commit that crime?
Those who supported impeachment when it was uncool had to address the objections to even trying impeachment, and rightfully so. So I think it's only fair for those of you who suddenly think it's ok to do it for Gonzales to go through these same objections. Better to have these objections delivered to you by a friend who agrees with you (me), rather than an enemy whose motives are questionable. Remember, we're talking about a painful process here that really does tear the country apart. Making the choice to undergo that pain requires moral courage and a principled mind. So let's get started:
1. Where are we going to get 17 Republicans to vote to convict Gonzales? Ah, yes, the old "we don't have the votes" argument. Specifically, who are the moderates that would oppose impeaching George W. Bush, but support impeaching Alberto Gonzales? I'll grant you there are some- Gordon Smith, Arlen Specter, and Susan Collins come to mind- but I scratch my head when I try and get 17. Run through the list- where are the defections, and why would they defect? Remember that we already failed to hold a 'no-confidence' vote on Alberto Gonzales- what's going to change? Also, as pro-impeachers know from countless piefights with anti-impeachers, trying and failing is apparently worse than not trying at all (according to anti-impeachers, at least). So before we start down the road to impeaching Gonzales, we have to know where these votes are coming from. Otherwise, we shouldn't try it at all...right?
2. How are we going to handle the media circus that will accompany the impeachment of our Attorney General? One could argue (correctly, IMO) that the media will make a much bigger deal out of impeaching Bush than impeaching Gonzales, but I hardly think the media will downplay or ignore the impeachment of Gonzales. There will still be a huge circus that will inevitably "crowd out" the legislative agenda. How is an impeachment circus that crowds out the legislative agenda okay for Gonzales (but not for Bush)? Is the impeachment of the sitting Attorney General really going to be a side story that will take a back seat to lobbying reform, universal healthcare, etc.?
Also, even though Speaker Pelosi didn't specifically take impeachment off the table for Gonzales, does anyone honestly believe Republicans or the MSM are going to make that distinction? Or, more likely, are the Republicans going to claim "liar liar," with the MSM merrily repeating it over and over and over again, thus distracting everyone from the whole issue? Make no mistake, there will be a media and soundbite fight if Dems decide to impeach Gonzales, and if Dems were afraid of a fight before (with Bush), I'm not sure how I see them suddenly courageous now (with Gonzales).
3. Doesn't an impeachment trial of Alberto Gonzales distract our efforts to get out of Iraq? While I always agreed with anti-impeachers that getting out of Iraq was/is more important than impeachment of George W. Bush, I never understood how declining to impeach helped our chances to get out of Iraq. Perhaps it's a "crowd out the agenda" argument related to #2 above, but I'm not sure. Nevertheless, I put this objection up here because it was an objection used against impeaching George W. Bush.
4. How are we going to explain to the American people in 2008 that we weren't engaged in a "partisan witch hunt?" The facts of the case against Gonzales are damning, but the MSM and the American people aren't going to have time to wade through the complicated USA Purge story, or the warrantless wiretapping or the torture memo or the NSL abuse- after all, they haven't really done so yet. The MSM will presumably paint this as a partisan piefight, won't they? Even if the MSM and the American people did understand and were outraged at Gonzales' crimes, he didn't act without guidance or instruction. If what he did is outrageous and criminal and worthy of impeachment, then the person who ordered him was equally outrageous and criminal and worthy of impeachment.
5. Impeachment is "off the table," according to Democratic leadership, so how do we change their minds before the silly season begins? This is the time issue, which in my opinion was always the most valid of objections to impeaching President Bush. Has any Dem actually called for the impeachment of Gonzales yet? Resignation, sure, but impeachment? No. On the contrary, we've seen many leading Democrats (most recently Russ Feingold and Howard Dean) explicitly oppose impeachment of President Bush, so before anything happens we need to change their minds. For crying out loud, the Dems are still looking for a way to force the President's own US Attorney to enforce their subpoenas (good luck, BTW)- they're a long, long way from deciding to forcibly remove anyone, let alone Gonzales. The window for impeachment is closing fast- apparently, once the 2008 primaries start, impeachment of anyone will not be pursued. Isn't this all just a thought exercise that will never happen, with either Bush or Gonzales?
6. Polling doesn't support impeaching Alberto Gonzales. I haven't done a lot of research on this, but I don't even think the impeachment question is being asked. It wasn't really being asked of George W. Bush either, but that didn't stop anyone from raising this objection. On whether Alberto Gonzales should resign or not, the public is actually split (Faux News poll here, Gallup poll (video) here, Rasmussen poll here) with around 1/3 supporting and 1/3 opposing. The polling data on Gonzales is generally thin and old (both Gallup and Fox polls were from April, and Rasmussen's was from March), so perhaps the numbers will show something new over the next few weeks. Still, if polling is showing only 40% support the resignation of Alberto Gonzales, I think it's safe to assume that even less support the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales.
...
Whew! Did I miss any impeachment objections? As I said, this is kind of a d--kish thing to do to people who just recently sided with me. But again, for all the fury I hurled at anti-impeachers, they were right to at least raise the objections and rein me (and others) in a bit. We can't go off half-cocked here, because impeachment is too big a fight to impulsively charge into.
Even though I suspect this effort will fail (just like I suspect impeaching Bush or Cheney would fail), I firmly believe we have to stand on a principle and try. In my opinion, the biggest problem is (as I suspect many recent impeachment converts will find out) that the Dem political leadership is opposed to the actual task of impeachment. They simply don't want to do it, period. It doesn't matter who, it doesn't matter when, it doesn't matter why- they don't want to do it ever, and thus won't do it ever. My disappointment with Dem leadership was one of the reasons why I stepped away from the US Attorney Daily Update.
I'm all for impeaching Gonzales, and I will be happy, nay eager, to be wrong about any of the objections I raise here. In fact, I'd love to hear people's ideas on how to overcome these objections and increase our chances at successfully impeaching Gonzales, especially from those who are/were skeptical of impeaching President Bush. That's kind of the whole point of this diary.
If Kossacks and the blogosphere want to make impeaching Gonzales a priority and start putting pressure on Dem politicians to get moving on this, that's great. If we can overcome these objections to get the Dem leadership to impeach Gonzales, however, then I think we can overcome the same objections to get the Dem leadership to impeach Bush (for ordering Gonzales to commit these crimes). The two are inextricably linked.
And we should be thinking about that as we try to "get" Gonzales.