I saw a bumper sticker as I was wandering through the parking lot of the Yoga place next door on the way back from a day at the Writing Center retreat and stops at Safeway and Blockbuster:

Practice compassionate impeachment

Well, that’s a contradiction in terms. I realize that that’s usually the point of bumper stickers — to be a little flippant and completely contradictory — but it still got me thinking about the term “compassionate impeachment”. I decided to be literal in interpreting this phrase and looked up both “compassionate” and “impeachment” in the Oxford American Dictionary (Heald Colleges Edition, 1980):

compassionate (adj.): a feeling of pity that makes one want to help or show mercy

impeachment (n.): 1. to charge a public official with misconduct in office before an appropriate tribunal. 2. to call in question, to discredit.

Thus, the phrase “compassionate impeachment” refers to a case when, out of pity and a want to show mercy to a public official, that official is charged with misconduct in office before a tribunal. Well, given the liberal stance on the current Presidency (as well as my own stance on the current Presidency), it’s relatively safe to assume that this refers to Bush (it’s also rare to hear of impeachments that don’t involve the office of the President of the United States; this isn’t further corroborating evidence towards assuming it’s about Bush, simply an observation). Practicing compassionate impeachment is sort of a way of “saving grace” in the face of a public official whom the public feels has screwed up.

I would argue that this is exactly what we don’t want to do in Bush’s case. Yes, Bush has perpetuated lies upon the American people, the depths of which probably won’t be fully revealed, much less understood, for several years. Yes, we are in an unjust war against Iraq (and, to some extent, against Afghanistan and the entire Middle East). Yes, this is another Vietnam — I may not like the way John Kerry has been pushing this point lately, but he is dead on in this assessment. However, given that Bush has made these errors and omissions, there isn’t enough time left within his Presidency to justify impeachment proceedings against him, since the effect of such proceedings would be felt after he left office and the damage has been done. While I recognize that some charges are better than no charges and that consequences should be leveled, the timing is wrong.

In addition, the nature of the Bush presidency thus far suggests that there are lies that we haven’t even begun to uncover. Impeaching now — without allowing more facts to emerge — is to only impeach him on his known actions after 9/11 and to essentially absolve him of future prosecution due to the double jeopardy provisions of the Constitution. Perhaps this is a stretch of my legal understanding of the Constitution — since some people spend their whole lives trying to understand the intent and content of that document — but it seems to me a reasonable conclusion. Any facts or evidence uncovered after impeachment that are related to 9/11 cannot be used against him.

Thus, since impeachment refers to a public official and not a private citizen or war crimes tribunal, impeachment in Bush’s case was impractical. Clinton’s impeachment was politically viable merely because, number one, he had committed deeds that were fully known to the public, and number two, he had enough time left in office for impeachment proceedings to make sense. At least in terms of number two, there are only about three months left in the Bush presidency. Compassionate impeachment, in any form, against George W. Bush is impractical, though the need to make Bush accountable for his lies is copiously evident.