Reply #19: It may be semantics, but I am going to differ with your premise.

[MGKrebs]

Personally, the reason I prefer the "investigation" instead of "impeachment" terminology is because by calling for impeachment without the investigation it seems to pre-suppose guilt.

While I understand that technically "impeachment" does not mean "guilty", I feel the two words are used interchangbly a lot, even here on DU, and even in your piece. You advocate calling for "impeachmnent" and you state "the investigations into the many crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration". To me it is counter-productive and antithetical to the process to consider the outcome a foregone conclusion. If one believes that those crimes occurred, then an investigation, conducted objectively and within the rule of law, should result in a just conclusion.

At the very least, there are so many possible areas to investigate, we have the opportunity to take the high road and be as objective as possible and still get the result so many believe is warranted. The other path- calling for "impeachment" first- devolves into partisan bickering and opens the door to "witch hunt" claims. It is just uneccessary.

Yes, it is semantics. But words matter. Ask John Kerry, or Scooter Libby, or Howard Dean (well OK, that wasn't really a word, per se :-)) or anybody else whose words have caused trouble.

Having said all that, I think there is a place for the calls for impeachment. Somebody has to do it just to plant the seeds. But those who do may relegate themselves to "fringe" status to some degree or another in a lot of peoples minds.

Thoughtful and worthwhile piece. Thanks.