David Franke and Daniel McCarthy both make good points in response to Byron York‘s warning of what will come if the Democrats take back the House, namely that they will start impeachment proceedings against Mr. Bush.  For both of them, as for me, this would be very good news, perhaps restoring some minimal confidence in the mythical “checks and balances” about which we all heard so much in our childhood. 

I cannot help but recall the delirious intensity with which Republicans went after Clinton for “presidential lying” and how they came up with all sorts of pretty sensible arguments about why having presidents who lie egregiously to the public and also under oath is dangerous to the country and how it also obviously undermines the integrity of the office of President.  Now, with another liar in office, and one whose lies have cost us far more than some national embarrassment and a large expense account for Ken Starr, Republicans and lockstep “conservatives” are horrified at the prospect of the same ethical principle coming back to bite one of theirs.  Of course, Mr. Bush’s real crime, the one that should merit his impeachment and removal, is launching an unconstitutional war.  Having no lawful authority for what he did, he violated the Constitution and broke his oath of office.  That is his offense–it is proveable and it is actually illegal.  Then again, Andrew Johnson was impeached not because he had really broken any laws, but because he had frustrated the political designs of the Radical Republicans, so impeachment does not strictly require a proveable crime.  However, if the Democrats really want Bush removed from office (which, let us not forget, would mean one or two years of the hilarious President Cheney, which might conceivably be worse in some ways), they will focus on his proveable constitutional transgressions (of which there are so, so many) and avoid the rhetorically useful but unfortunately legally irrelevant theme of “Bush lied.”