Today saw two bloggers I respect very much post - for the first time, as far as I know - about the merits of attempting to impeach George W. Bush.

As Daily Kos readers know, Meteor Blades argued in favor of impeachment, writing:

But what is our choice? We can't only defend the Constitution when the timing is convenient. We can't always wait until election day to make matters right. If that were the Founders' view, there would be no mention of impeachment in the Constitution. If the Bush-Cheney Administration cannot be compelled to turn over subpoenaed documentation relating to its Constitution-dismantling outlawry, and it plans to try every legal maneuver and delaying techinique at its disposal to avoid that compulsion, what remedy remains?

A court battle over these subpoenaed documents could take, in political terms, forever, with no guarantee at the end of even partial victory. The Nixon Administration engaged in legal wrangling over releasing incriminating audiotapes for more than a year, and that was before rightwingers had their hooks so deeply embedded in the federal judiciary.

Digby, on the other hand, argues that "time is not on our side" when it comes to impeachment itself.  Beyond that, though, she says:

Finally, there is the most important and indisputable fact that Bush and Cheney will never be convicted in the Senate. This isn't the GOP of 1974 and they will never cross over in enough numbers. They won't do it even if video tapes of Bush personally giving hush money to Scooter Libby turn up. Let's not kid ourselves about that reality. The fact is that impeachment will probably bring their caucus together.

In a back-and-forth all too familiar to those of us who desperately want to see Bush's ability to continue to harm this country ended but understand that the Senate will not convict him, Digby sees the potential benefit of even a failed impeachment in laying bare the administration's crimes.

But even so, that's not necessarily a good enough reason not to do it. It could be useful, if only to tie the administration up in knots until they leave the scene. But the risks are high that if you don't have a specific (and somewhat simple) crime to point to and a good chance of at least getting a quick impeachment vote in the House, that it could blow back pretty hard on the Dems. This is not because people like Bush and don't want him out of office. It's because they see that the presidential campaign is in full swing and know that Bush will be out of office soon anyway.

In the end, she focuses on these consequences that Meteor Blades acknowledged but did not dwell on:

But whatever they do, it's important to remember that impeachment is a nuclear political act, and because it's a nuclear political act it has to be judged on that basis with a clear view of the political playing field. The consequences of voting impeachment out of committee and failing to get a majority in the House --- or if we get a vote, failing to convict in the Senate (which is inevitable) are what's really at issue. I'm willing to consider that it's worthwhile anyway. But regardless, everyone needs to decide this course based upon the reality that Bush will not be convicted and barring an untimely demise, will not leave office before January 20, 2009.

So the question I ask is this --- is a failed impeachment going to hold them accountable? If so, then I'm for it. But if it actually ends up getting them off the hook, then not so much. It's not such an easy call.

When we remember that impeachment is a nuclear political act, also remember that nuclear explosions produce nuclear fallout.  We need to know the winds before we launch.  To me, it's too likely the fallout would blow right over our heads.  Would that really be a defense of the Constitution?