Reply #28: Good post. Given two extreme views, that doesn't mean the truth or what's right is always inbetween

[jpgray]

The main counterargument to impeachment now is that we have a tiny majority unable (at present) to carry off conviction, current investigations may uncover better evidence for a more effective impeachment effort, and finally there are a few strategic dangers (whether it will be used as an avenue to boost the PR of the GOP--Rove's good at the ol' "behold me, I am wronged!" and "political theater!" accusations). Certainly it would tend to increase GOP solidarity, as they would see impeachment as an attack against their party as well as an attack on Bush. It may necessarily politicize his malfeasance in the ongoing investigations ("they just want to impeach!"), and turn investigations of real high crimes into what the media love to call "partisan bickering." Pursuant to that, instead of running away from Bush, impeachment might lead GOP folks to band together--no politician likes to see a member of his party cut out and eliminated by the other. A successful conviction or a solid preliminary investigation would mitigate that last problem quite a bit. And it's not good to operate in total fear of what your opponent is going to do.

I could be totally wrong, and you could be totally right. But I see it better to wait at least for some of the wiretap investigations to mature a bit more.