Impeachment - not just for moonbats anymore?

Joe Klein in Tomorrow’s TIME: Bush ‘Clearly Unfit to Lead’

In the upcoming issue of Time magazine, out Friday, columnist Joe Klein considers what he calls the Bush administration’s “epic collapse.” He concludes with a statement that may make some wonder if he is hinting that the president ought to be impeached.

Klein claims, in referring to the president, that he has “tried to be respectful of the man and the office” but now he recognizes that the “defining sins” of his administration “are congenital: they’re part of his personality. They’re not likely to change. And it is increasingly difficult to imagine yet another two years of slow bleed with a leader so clearly unfit to lead.”

Earlier in the column, Klein hits Bush’s “adolescent petulance” and “indifference to reality in Iraq” and charges that his “hyper-partisanship” amounts to “a travesty of governance.” He declares that the three major Bush problems of the year “precisely illuminate the three qualities that make this Administration one of the worst in American history: arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).”

Klein considers Attorneygate, compared to the others, to be “a relatively minor matter.” Still, it is an area where Karl Rove “has corrupted a policy area – like national security—that should be off-limits to political operators.”

[UPDATE: Posting his column tonight on the Time blog Swampland, Klein notes that despite not being able to imagine two more years with an “unfit” president: “NO! I am not hinting at impeachment. There are no ‘high crimes’ here. Just a really bad presidency. In fact, I consider impeachment talk counterproductive and slightly nutso.”]

Wow. I know hinting. And, sorry Joe, that’s hinting.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys.. on 05 Apr 2007 at 4:47 pm

    H&I* Fires, 5 APR 2007…

    Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That’s only polite. You’re advertising here, we should get an……

Comments

  1. scarshapedstar wrote:

    I’m seriously having trouble figuring out what the Republicans think they have to gain by not tossing Bush overboard. He’s already an albatross around their necks. Come 2008 he will be covered in writhing maggots, sending people running away and wretching.

    If they think that they have to stand behind him to look “steadfast” (i.e. even as they despise him they can’t help but use his bizarre “logic”) then there is truly no washing the Bush Kool-Aid from their brains and they deserve what’s coming to them next fall.

  2. a former european wrote:

    Nah, impeachment is still pretty much for moonbats.

  3. Tainted Bill wrote:

    Well, it does say “high crimes and misdemeanors”, not “and general incompetence”.

  4. Redhand wrote:

    A bit of wishful thinking here, Commie. No HC&M IMHO. Just gross incompetence combined with insufferable arrogance. We’ll have to tough the next two years out. Take heart, it’s actually less than two years now.

  5. commissar wrote:

    “High crimes and misdemeanors” presumably would not include general and gross incompetence, such as the Iraq war. Agreed.

    Attorney-gate may open more cans of worms than TIME magazine suggests. Remember the phrase “third-rate burglary?”

  6. Grim wrote:

    Presumably “misfeasance” could be defined as a misdemeanor for this purpose; since there is no judicial review, essentially anything is a “high crime and/or misdemeanor” if both houses of Congress say that it is.

    So why not impeach him for what you’re really mad about, rather than searching for a pretext? You’ll end up handing him a whole set of defenses and distractions that wouldn’t be available if you just stuck to your guns.

  7. a former european wrote:

    Hey, if we are going to impeach presidents for incompetence, how the heck did Jimmah Cartuh survive?

  8. DavidC wrote:

    Klein hits Bush’s “adolescent petulance” and “indifference to reality in Iraq”

    Dumping Rumsfeld and changing the strategy on the ground is an indication of positive change, not indifference to reality. “Adolescent petulance” applies to Klein even more than it does Bush.

    “hyper-partisanship” amounts to “a travesty of governance.”

    This is just laughable, and could easily be applied just as fittingly (actually more so) to Democrats.

    arrogance (the surge), incompetence (Walter Reed) and cynicism (the U.S. Attorneys).”

    The surge is a strategic/military decision that falls within the purview of the Executive. It has nothing to do with arrogance. Arrogance is the Speaker of the House trying to conduct foreign policy independent of the Executive — but I’m sure that’s ok with Klein. Walter Reed is just typical government inefficency and carelessness — nothing unique to Bush.
    Attorneygate is all politics and fighting between the Executive and Legislative branches, unless illegal actions by the administration can be proven. Politicians acting in a cynical manner, who would have thought?

    I hate defending Bush, but Klein’s article is just typical overblown Bush-bashing. Bush may be incompetent in some areas, but he’s done nothing remotely worthy of impeachment.

  9. commissar wrote:

    Grim, DavidC,

    Have I mentioned yet that Al Capone was jailed for income tax evasion?

    There’s a rough analogy there. DavidC makes the persuasive case that Bush can’t be impeached for Iraq. Whether one adopts his perspective, or prefers ‘incompetence isn’t impeachable,’ we end up in the same place, i.e. you can’t use Iraq as a reason - politically or (perhaps) constitutionally.

    Now, to Attorney-gate:

    unless illegal actions by the administration can be proven.

    Yep. But if they are, look out. (As a purely practical matter, no matter how bad, no matter how criminal Attorney-gate might be, I doubt that it could go further than Rove, in terms of evidence and proof. Bush is disengaged; that’s his style.)

    But, Grim, those are my rough thoughts on “why not go after him for the real beef?”