Jules Witcover writes a memorable goodbye to Baltimore

Since I'm a blogger and not a journalist, I'm going to wait until after I post excerpts from this column before I try to look up the backstory.

But when you read this column - and this is one that you really should go read the whole thing - it's hard not to imagine that there's an interesting backstory here: Goodbye, Baltimore by Jules Witcover Baltimore Sun 08/19/05

I've quoted Witcover here often, because he's one of the best journalists and political analysts we have.  It's truly bizarre that a tired, cynical, shallow writer like David Broder is referred to as the "dean" of the American press corps.  But then, he's far more refective of the caliber of the Big Pundits that Jules Wicover is.  Because the Witcovers of the journalistic world, of which we have tragically far too few, is far above the Big Pundit standar of today.

Also, Witcover's most recent book, The Party of the People (2003), is a history of the Democratic Party.  And his description of Andrew Jackson there is outstanding.  That alone earns him lots of points with me.

This column is framed as a goodbye to his Baltimore Sun readers.  Witcover is still going to be writing in syndication.  But he will be leaving his Baltimore Sun home base, as he explains.

This farewell column is an explanation of why he has devoted so much attention to the Iraq War the last three years.  Again, it's a reflection of the degraded standards of our public discussion these days that such a thing would require any kind of explanation.

Do read the whole thing.  But this part near the end really jumped out at me (my emphasis):

Into 2003, I took ever-firmer positions against Mr. Bush's actions, noting only when the invasion began that U.S. forces deserved support without my surrendering my obligation to examine and criticize the policy.

At the outset, I received much e-mail accusing me of disloyalty and even treason, but as the situation in Iraq festered and Mr. Bush's rationales for the invasion crumbled, the mail began to turn around. In time I was criticized by some readers for not calling for Mr. Bush's impeachment for misleading the nation into war.

I wrote then that there was a more realistic vehicle for expressing public disfavor - the approaching 2004 presidential election. I argued that those who were against the war could use the election as a referendum on what I argued was an illegal war begun under false premises.

Many voters obviously did so, but not enough, in part because the Bush campaign succeeded in making Democratic nominee John Kerry, himself ambiguous on the war, and his Vietnam service record the issue rather than the man who had started that war. In retrospect, I lament not having advocated impeachment, even as achieving it was unlikely.

Now, I've caught Witcover a time or two repeating conventional press corps scripts, e.g., Al Gore having claimed to invent the Internet.  But Witcover's work on the Iraq War and related issues is good to wash away quite a few sins of conventional wisdom.  And his recognition of Andy "Old Hickory" Jackson as a champion of democracy earns him even more absolution for the occasional conventional-wisdom slip.

So, in honor of Witcover's transition: Yes, George W. Bush richly deserves to be impeached.  Along with his vice president, Dark Lord Dick Cheney.