You may hate Bush, but there's no justification for impeachment

Dallas Morning News | Mark Davis:

“‘High crimes and misdemeanors’ is the standard required for impeachment of a president. The prime logical flaw of those seeking that fate for this president is that the ‘crimes’ they see are either things that are not illegal at all (prewar intelligence flaws, the bad Katrina response, etc.) or matters whose criminality remains in great question (NSA wiretaps, detainee interrogations, etc.).”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Mark Davis spends thirteen paragraphs attempting to discredit the impeachment movement, but only parenthically mentions the Constitutional abuses that prompt the movement. If Mr Davis wants to defend President Bush, he is better advised to explain why wiretapping Americans' phones without a court warrant is not a violation of the Bill of Rights. And how holding prisoners in violation of the Geneva Convention, an international treaty the United States is a signatory to and therefore legally bound to uphold, is not a crime.

Instead, Mr Davis dredges up the right's favorite whipping boy, Bill Clinton. He states as presumed true without need of corroborating argument that the Clinton impeachment was justified. In effect, he doesn't defend Bush, he merely distracts attention by stirring up old passions. Mr Davis may hate Clinton, but Clinton is history. More and more, Bush's Presidency is history, too, especially if apologists like Mr Davis can present no more compelling defense than this.