Why Pelosi And Reid Should Be Impeached

For the past several months, there has been a quiet but steady whisper on the Hill about the possible impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney. Much of this nonsensical drivel centers on the war in Iraq and has been spearheaded by the usual cast of nitwits: Namely, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, and the media chameleon Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Now, fast forward to July 30, 2007, when Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institute authored an OP-ED piece in The New York Times entitled “A War We Just Might Win.”

When I first read their piece, I had to hit refresh on my computer a couple of hundred times. In fact, I could not believe my eyes. Was this some kind of sick April Fools joke in July that the Grey Lady was disseminating to amuse me as I battled the torrid D.C. summer heat?

No, it was not a joke. Two Brookings analysts who have been highly critical of the Bush administration’s handling of Iraq were now offering qualified hope given the recent troop surge.

No matter how skeptical the left may be of the two individuals’ assertions, Congress clearly needs to heed their advice: “[T]here is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.”

Given this advice and the present general laziness of the media in its unquestioning consumption of the spoon-fed communist propaganda by the ever-so dishonest Democratic Congressional leadership, I have to say that maybe we should initiate impeachment proceedings against Reid and Pelosi.

Why? Since taking power in their respective chambers of Congress, Pelosi and Reid have done nothing but foster a “defeatist attitude” towards Iraq that is crippling America’s armed forces, internally and externally. What these two leaders of Congress fail to realize is that Iraq is a situation that yields no risk-free alternatives.

If we pack up and leave right now, Iraq will destroy itself, America will lose all bargaining credibility in future conflicts and the efforts of the more than 3,500 American service members who have died in Iraq will be for naught.

On the other hand, if we stay and back the recent troop surge, we may lose more American service members, but there is a chance that we can make headway and at the very least “produce not necessarily ‘victory’ but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.”

You would have to be extremely insane or a minion of Wolf Blitzer to not back the latter option.

If you are still in doubt, think back to the resounding success known as Desert Shield/Desert Storm. In that conflict, America deployed more than 420,000 troops to drive an enemy out of an area roughly three times the size of Delaware. Therefore, logic dictates that to successfully quash sectarian violence in Iraq – which is slightly larger than California – America’s troop presence needs to be greater than 300,000. Prior to the surge, America’s troop presence in Iraq was estimated to be 159,000, the surge increased that total to approximately 190,000 troops. If 30,000 troops can make this kind of difference in Iraq, think of what an additional 100,000 can do.