Impeachment for Incompetence?

It's become apparent to even the most dull-witted citizen that incompetence seems to prevail in the government. The Attorney General is clearly way in over his head. His latest attempts to lie or claim ignorance before the House and Senate investigating committees is shamefull and embarrassing. The Secretary of State was hardly competent as the National Security Advisor and "overlooked" the warning about BinLaden's plans to attack the US. Then she was "promoted" to another level and is in over her head once again. The only thing that's saved her is that she's not done much to bring dishonor to her office, like the Attorney General. The Vice President has pressed his political agenda into areas of the government where he shouldn't and the result a general breakdown in the credibility of governmental review and reporting. Likewise Carl Rove's hand has been found in governmental and legislative "cookie jars" where no adviser to the President has gone before. Even the President has left his fingerprints on various disasters such as the infamous occupation of Iraq and the generally terrible reputation of the US in international affairs and the continued fall of the once mighty US dollar as the "gold standard" of internation currency to second behind that of the Canadian Dollar!

The question is: Does incompetence stand as reason enough to Impeach? Do we have to find their incompetence was also linked to illegal acts? In the case of the AG, it sure looks like he intentionally ignored the Civil Service Laws even against the best advice of those few underlings who warned him against that. That should be enough to impeach but the dilemna is that the AG is so incompetent that the question becomes blurred. Was he too incompetent to know he was doing something wrong? Or, did he do something wrong because he was incompetent? Or, did he do something illegal and is now hiding behind the defence of "ignorance" and "poor recall"?

Is ignorance an excuse? If you or I were hauled in front of a judge and asked about something we did that was illegal, could we simply respond with, "I don't recall" or "That's a matter of priviledge"? I don't think so. After a few of those responses, we'd be hauled off to jail, I'm sure. But for Presidential Advisors, members of the Cabinet, and members of the Justice Department, these excuses seem to be the perfect defense.

As much as I'd like the President to have "Executive Priviledge", it simply is a courtesy granted by the Congress, a "priviledge", because there is no Constitutional basis for it. It was given to George Washington and others because Congress wanted to give the President some room within his office to side-step their questions. However, since Richard Nixon, "Executive Priviledge" has become a "Get out of Jail Free" card to be played as much as often as the President and his staff deemed necessary. In this administration it's been expanded to include private citizens called to testify under subpeona by Congress, a step beyond any previously taken.

So, must we wait until the evidence falls on us like a Minneapolis highway bridge before we impeach the President, Vice President, Attorney General, Secretary of State, etc., etc.? Or can we dispense with the formalities and impeach for imcompetence? Because, if these people can't seem to provide concrete, believeable answers to even the most simple questions, they should be impeached. And if they use Executive Privledge, to evade answering the simplest questions, they should be impeached. If they are impeached perhaps then their memories will sharpen and we'll get the answers to our questions. It seems to be the only way we'll get answers.

IMPEACH!