Why Not Impeachment?

Is impeachment still "off the table"? Do we accept we can do nothing? The Dems waffled on the war, on impeachment, so who's going to impeach?

"Why Not Impeachment?" is the title of a new argument by Robert Parry. Reading it makes me hopeful there are people with backbone left in the press. The gist of it is that Rumsfeld wasn't "fired" for incompetence, he was ousted because he went soft on the war. You heard me right. He wanted a rapid draw down of troops. The memo stating this is published. The Dems ignore it. You read the story. Don't ignore it.

In other words, Rumsfeld’s ouster didn’t signal Bush’s new flexibility on ending the war, as the Democrats hoped, but a repudiation of Rumsfeld for going wobbly on Iraq.

Even when the Rumsfeld memo surfaced in early December, the Democrats ignored it, sticking to their wishful script that the Rumsfeld-Gates switch marked a recognition by Bush that it was time to begin extricating U.S. forces from Iraq.

Those rose-colored glasses got smudged badly when Bush instead announced in January that he was ordering an escalation, sending more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.

But instead of responding with their own escalation – and putting impeachment back “on the table” – the Democrats opted for a strategy of wooing moderate Republicans to mild-mannered legislative protests.

Why not ask your Senator why impeachment is not "back on the table"?