By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; Page A06
Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's top Democrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeach President Bush even if it gains control of the House in November's elections, her office said last night.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closed meeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.
Politics Trivia
When did the U.S. Senate first meet?
December 14, 1789
November 27, 1790
December 6, 1790
January 16, 1791
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
* Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
* Wonkette: The D.C. Gossip
* Athene Biz
Full List of Blogs (151 links) »
Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web
Save & Share
* Tag This Article
Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Byline
2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Blurb
3. Tag This Article
Some House Democrats, including ranking Judiciary Committee member John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, have called for impeachment hearings into allegations that Bush misled the nation about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and that he violated federal law by approving warrantless wiretaps on Americans. In an interview with The Washington Post last week, Pelosi said a Democratic-controlled House would launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of the investigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to."
GOP activists seized on the remarks to warn potential donors of Bush's possible peril if Democrats pick up the 15 net House seats they need to become the majority. The National Republican Congressional Committee republished The Post's Sunday article in a letter to supporters and donors that stated: "The threat of the Democrats taking the majority in the House this November is very real."
Some Democratic activists criticized Pelosi, saying she made the party appear extreme while drawing attention away from more useful issues such as gasoline prices and Republican lobbying scandals.
Daly said Pelosi never considered impeachment a priority. Republicans "are in such desperate shape," he said, "we don't want to give them anything to grab on to." He said Conyers agrees with Pelosi's thinking.
Some think that impeaching the president and respecting the office of the president are two ideas that are opposite ends of the spectrum and mutually exclusive.
From the short time I have been interested in U.S. politics I have seen the office of the president being disrespected more by the holders of the office than by those who should respect it---the rest of us.
I think this started in my mind with Nixon. Nixon could have and should have been impeached. If not for the pardon of Gerald Ford, I think he would have been. He abused the powers of the office for his own benefit and to the detriment of democracy. He isn't the only one. Ford's pardon doomed Ford for the next election and brought in Jimmy Carter. It seems the American people's tolerance for the tolerance the republican party (and democratic party) gives its own members is just not kosher with the average American voter. Why should it be?
The next episode of a dubious nature was Reagan's back door dealing for the hostages. In return for the hostages that doomed Carter's presidency, Reagan did his military deal with Iran. Arms for hostages.
I think I can be more forgiving to Reagan because he did get the hostages back, albeit in a dirty way. The lives of the hostages, in my opinion, excused this action which in many ways could hardly be construed as an impeachable offense. Dirty, yes, but the ends could have arguably justified the means.
The next effort at impeachment came with Bill Clinton. The impeachable offense was his lying about his affair with Monica. He pulled a dirty lawyer language as the excuse. The act with Monica was not an impeachable offense, although the voters sure had the right to impose their moral standards on the office of the presidency at the booth. The act of lying was impeachable. He also showed his true colors of outright allegiance to Tyson Foods and their support by pardoning Archie Schaffer.
Next comes George Bush. His NSA wiretaps and going around the balance of power check of the court review in my opinion is impeachable. President Bush has followed a long line of politicians who misuse the power of the federal government for themselves. Bush's excuse of terrorism is just that--a scare tactic and an excuse. The same could be said for the abuse of intelligence information and the lack of oversight of the Congress of the executive branch.
To me, looking at the office of the president, the presidents themselves have denigrated the office. Why should we respect it if it is just going to be used to abuse the power of the United States of America?
We need and deserve leaders who believe in democracy and the enforcement of law even when it comes to them and their colleagues. No more pardons so the truth is hidden that that the executive branch is just for sale. The rest of the world sees this happening in America. That may be the reason they have such low respect for the president, whomever and whatever party he may be from.
We need to respect the office of the president, but to do that, we need to ensure that it remains respectable.
We have a history of choosing leaders who are not doing that.