CNN has been running another story on the possibility of impeaching Bush. And just as it did the last time it dealt with the topic -- after it was raised by a Republican, of course, when Senator Chuck Hagel suggested a few months ago that Bush was "not accountable anymore" -- CNN has adopted an exaggerated sense of delicacy toward the issue:
You might call it the "i" word, the one that just won’t go away: impeachment.Gee, why won't the idea of impeaching Bush "just go away" already? CNN doesn't appear very interested in exploring the question. What we get instead is CNN Political Editor Mark Preston applying the doctrinaire conclusion about any and all political acivity in the USA -- It Is Bad For Democrats:
But talk is just talk, and political observers say that actually trying to impeach the president would be a bad move strategically. As Preston explains it, impeaching the president would actually hurt Democrats in their pursuit of the White House in 2008. "They would look partisan," says Preston. "They would look petty."When Republicans impeach, they're resolute and moral and disciplined. Democrats acting identically, though, would be petty. But while there are lots of good arguments against impeaching Bush, many of which I happen to agree with, looking petty would not be my primary concern in removing a Worst President Ever from an office in which he has acted with such tragic incompetence and criminality.
But back to the "I" word. The "N" word I get. The "F" word, sure. I'll even spot you the "C" word. But the "I" word? Seriously? That word describes a process Republicans gleefully pursued against a popular Democratic president within the past decade! CNN, as I recall, was entirely complicit in that (petty, highly partisan) process. Since when has it become so dainty, such a model of discretion, over the very "I" word itself?
(Yes, it's a rhetorical question. Thanks for playing along.)
|