IF impeachment could be done quickly, what could it prevent?

I suspect any concerns about overt military action against Iran (I suspect we're taking military action, and risking getting caught) would be eased by a swift impeachment. But I doubt such is possible.

So continuing the present action, putting in timelines for controlled withdrawals, will have the same effect - even regarding Iran.

But we've got to watch for false flag operations here, it will take cool heads to deal with that possibility.

Even if they were to start impeachment proceedings tomorrow, the process likely would not be complete before the 2008 election. And even if it did get through the House, there are over 40 chickenshits in the Senate who would not support it. And the GOP cabal has NO sense of shame, so they will never resign in disgrace.

Impeachment sounds good, and is extremely appropriate, but I don't think it could actually happen before 2009.

That said, I think there are ways that impeachment, or the impeachment process, could be used to hamper the Bush regime. Focus on impeaching Cheney, and spend the next year or so holding hearings and gathering evidence and forcing the cabal to overstep it's bounds even further, so that when next fall rolls around, it's clear to at least 20% of the mouth breathers that currently still support Bush just how heinous he, and Cheney, and the rest of the GOP really is.

Impeachment won't happen, but we can use the process, or even just the threat of it, to help mitigate the damage the current administration will do to the country in the next 18 months.

I disagree.

We hear the argument repeatedly that there is not enough time and the Bush administration will simply run out the clock because proceedings will take too long.

Can we allow the precedents that this criminal administration has set stand unchallenged and open the door to similar abuse by future administrations?

If we do not take legal action against this administration we will be seen as being complicit in their crimes, as surely as someone who helps a murderer dispose of the body after the fact… In the eyes of the world we will be willing accomplices.

As implied by the author, the fact remains that the only reason NOT to impeach is for Dems to save their own asses. That’s not serving the people, that’s serving themselves.

As far as getting Articles out of the House, not even all the Dems need to be awake for that. A simple majority (50%) is all that’s required to get past the House.

In the Senate it’s slightly more difficult. The Dems need another 17 votes. There are up to 12 Republicans who are either at odds with Bush, have voted & spoke out against Bush policy, are RINO's or are up for re-election in 2009. All the Dems need to do is lean on these weak links and they’ll get the votes they need. Maybe explain to them that if they don’t vote to impeach, Republicans aren't going to be getting into office for the next 30 years because they’ll all be seen as Bush brown-nosers. Even if they can’t see doing their duty to their constituents, self interest will probably sway them.

However, it doesn’t matter whether the Dems can pull enough votes in the Senate or not and here is why...

In the case of the NSA Wire tapping and FISA violations you are talking about having the Congress investigate a crime. As Jonathan Turley, the constitutional law scholar pointed out on KO last night, if congress simply names this as a "criminal investigation" then Bush and Cheney can no longer claim Executive Privilege and must surrender all requested documents and testify under oath!

As Professor Turley and Former White House council John Dean have said repeatedly, the FISA violations by Bush, Cheney, and Attorney General Gonzales are, indeed, prima fascia criminal acts.

If the Dems vote for impeachment in the House, the Senate must have a hearing and there must be an investigation with the appointment of a Independent Special Prosecutor. The Special Prosecutor’s subpoenas can not be turned down by the White House, Nixon fought this one all the way to the Supreme Court and lost!

Who cares if they are removed from office by impeachment -- the process in Congress does not stop criminal proceedings. By simply naming one of the Articles of Impeachment as an investigation into a crime, Bush and Cheney lose all immunity under "Executive Privilege" and must comply with Congressional demands and the Special Prosecutors subpoenas.

This is why it is totally irrelevant if the impeachment proceedings succeed or not, simply trying will bring them down. Let Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales try to lead from a jail cell!

No more hesitation. Full speed ahead!

I disagree.

We hear the argument repeatedly that there is not enough time and the Bush administration will simply run out the clock because proceedings will take too long.

Can we allow the precedents that this criminal administration has set stand unchallenged and open the door to similar abuse by future administrations?

If we do not take legal action against this administration we will be seen as being complicit in their crimes, as surely as someone who helps a murderer dispose of the body after the fact… In the eyes of the world we will be willing accomplices.

As implied by the author, the fact remains that the only reason NOT to impeach is for Dems to save their own asses. That’s not serving the people, that’s serving themselves.

As far as getting Articles out of the House, not even all the Dems need to be awake for that. A simple majority (50%) is all that’s required to get past the House.

In the Senate it’s slightly more difficult. The Dems need another 17 votes. There are up to 12 Republicans who are either at odds with Bush, have voted & spoke out against Bush policy, are RINO's or are up for re-election in 2009. All the Dems need to do is lean on these weak links and they’ll get the votes they need. Maybe explain to them that if they don’t vote to impeach, Republicans aren't going to be getting into office for the next 30 years because they’ll all be seen as Bush brown-nosers. Even if they can’t see doing their duty to their constituents, self interest will probably sway them.

However, it doesn’t matter whether the Dems can pull enough votes in the Senate or not and here is why...

In the case of the NSA Wire tapping and FISA violations you are talking about having the Congress investigate a crime. As Jonathan Turley, the constitutional law scholar pointed out on KO last night, if congress simply names this as a "criminal investigation" then Bush and Cheney can no longer claim Executive Privilege and must surrender all requested documents and testify under oath!

As Professor Turley and Former White House council John Dean have said repeatedly, the FISA violations by Bush, Cheney, and Attorney General Gonzales are, indeed, prima fascia criminal acts.

If the Dems vote for impeachment in the House, the Senate must have a hearing and there must be an investigation with the appointment of a Independent Special Prosecutor. The Special Prosecutor’s subpoenas can not be turned down by the White House, Nixon fought this one all the way to the Supreme Court and lost!

Who cares if they are removed from office by impeachment -- the process in Congress does not stop criminal proceedings. By simply naming one of the Articles of Impeachment as an investigation into a crime, Bush and Cheney lose all immunity under "Executive Privilege" and must comply with Congressional demands and the Special Prosecutors subpoenas.

This is why it is totally irrelevant if the impeachment proceedings succeed or not, simply trying will bring them down. Let Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales try to lead from a jail cell!

No more hesitation. Full speed ahead!

Haven't you been one of the louder, more shrill voices spewing forth pro-impeachment rhetoric on this very site?

Not that I disagree completely with your latest words on the subject. Frankly, it's one of your more coherent, rational writings on the topic. Take that as a compliment.

It's too damn little

If impeachment is too small a measure, what greater sanction against Bush would you suggest?

it's far too late

If you mean there's not enough time to bring and pass articles of impeachment and complete a Senate trial, remember that Clinton's impeachment took less than 4 months.

the voters didn't give them power to grind the country to a halt

The power to impeach is granted by the Constitution. Although, whether or not the voters "want" impeachment isn't entirely relevant. Nevertheless i imagine responses to your post will show you that Democrats are vehemently split on the issue.

[The Republicans will] spin it as the Dems going power-mad

Granted, the Democrats have failed miserably to combat the Repub spin machine, but it is not reasonable to take impeachment off the table for fear of attack from the right.

[Impeachment will] cost the Dems the Senate and maybe the House

I disagree with the premise and even if it were so, find the reasoning to be shallow. It's like deciding not to do your job now in order to ensure you'll have a job in the future.

How can impeachment lead to anything but a morass

Congress actually manages to do a lot when they're not getting much done. Whether or not articles of impeachment are drawn up, the various House committees are still responsible for investigating the crimes of Bush end Cheney.

If the Dems can work with the Republicans to end the war

All the Democrats had to do to end the war was simply not to fund it. For every month the Democrats pay for the Iraq war, an additional 60-100 US soldiers will pay with their lives.

I hope Nancy Pelosi politely tells [Cindy Sheehan] to go to hell.

This statement flat out offends me. I've done my best to strip away sarcasm and cheekiness from my response. (And it was very difficult.) I read your opinion loud and clear that ending the war and capturing the White House takes priority over punishing Bush. It's my belief that all three priorities could be accomplished but for the leadership of the Democratic party.

I know there are lefties that have nightmares about Bush and Cheney trying to find some way to stay in power after January 20, 2009

I don't consider myself a lefty even if I often support positions taken by people on the left. On the other hand I take exception to what some on the left say. Nor would I make like Paul Revere and run around shouting that Bush is going to become a dictator and cancel the November 2008 elections. On the other hand, my conservative side and readings of history tell me the judicious approach is to keep an eye out and an ear cocked for such a possibility. Bush, Cheney and Rove have not only pushed the envelope on the Constitution they have continually indicated they are capable of pushing a whole pallet load of envelopes.

As for impeachment given the hypocrites and other forms of wretchedness in Congress it will only lead to a lot of hyperventilating on both sides of the political spectrum as opposed to the party aisle. However, a call for impeachment would have one virtue. It would let the people know where their congressional representatives stand on high crimes and misdemeanors and the Constitution. Those of us in Congressional District No. 2 already know the answer to that one.

What level of heinous crime will this administration have to commit, before every one gets a spine and demands accountability through the impeachment process. Is no one listening to the Constitution?

“…ending the war” only means re-labeling our troops as trainers, it doesn’t remove the contractors, tear down the military bases, tear down the embassy fortress, reverse the 100 points of bremerpiss, un-privatize the country, leave the oil to the Iraqis or all of the other crimes de jour. It doesn’t give back the $4 trillion stolen, or tear down the detention camps in this country. It doesn’t find out the truth of the towers coming down.

Impeachment on the other hand, looking at T.A.'s “big picture”, can bring up evidence of all of this and is the first step in further limiting corporate control over the private citizen in US politics. It can set the threshold for what we will allow and what we won’t for the next executive branch.

Returning to the rule of law and not the arrogant rule of signing statements is an avenue to end all facets of Bush’s war.

Thoughts on the fly: This post presents some good arguments against impeachment, but as far as the politics of the decision, we also have to consider the wimp factor. We hear that people complain about Dems not standing for anything and that we won't stand up to the Bushies. Congress now has a lower approval rating than Bush! Some people may already be feeling that "we elected Democrats and they haven't done a thing to counter Bush". Republicans savor all of the above, of course, and portray us as effeminate and ineffectual. I'm not sure which way this should go, but I think this is probably a time to stand up for the Constitution, which in addition to impeachment means the on-going investigations. There are some risks in it, but I think the reasons to impeach outweigh them, and the reasons to impeach that people have already noted here are extremely important to the future of the country. That has to be the primary consideration. And I agree that even if impeachment does not happen, it will keep the pressure on. At the same time, we can not lose the focus on ending the war. We will be facing agonizing decisions about how to withdraw, or reduce forces, in the least destructive manner, which calls for great moral fortitude. In the long run, we'll achieve our goals by trying to put the welfare of the country and Iraq, and the world, first, rather than focusing on winning in 2008 (it isn't an easy choice, and I don't mean to over-simplify it). So I'm for betting the farm on trying to do the right thing for the future of the country - impeachment, no matter how risky it may be politically in the short run. There is a good chance that people will support us if we are courageous, and they may despise us it we are not - and perhaps rightly so. I wish Dems would get more political credit for the legislative work that has already been accomplished, and more to come, but I don't think that credit will count for much if we fail to confront the Cheney/Bush Administration in the strongest possible manner. Americans are fed up with this bunch, want to kick their asses, and hope in despair that Dems just might come through for them.

Someone once said that the difference between a gamble and a longshot is that with a gamble you don't know the odds, with a longshot you know the odds----long odds but you know what they are.

Seems to me that impeachment is a gamble.

In late January, 2009, Bush and Cheney become private citizens---subject to courts, law enforcement, etc. I understand the anger, but to me it would be better to win the 2008 elections and then prosecute them as private citizens.

Meanwhile, didn't I hear that Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) who is definitely not a rat (regardless of the comment "the rats most of them are" above) now openly opposes Bush's Iraq policy?

Please remember that it was not directly due to the actions of Democrats that Nixon resigned. Some very senior Republicans incl. Goldwater went to the White House and told him he didn't have the votes if impeachment came to the Senate.

Chuck Hagel and Jim Webb (Senators from different parties united by service in Vietnam) have introduced an amendment to set conditions for deploying troops: training, limits on time deployed, guarantee of time at home between deployments, etc. How could the Republicans running for re-election possibly vote against that and ever again say "support the troops"?

I wouldn't support Sheehan if she ran for Congress because I have been a Nancy Pelosi fan since at least when she first ran (used to live in N. Calif.).

Elections are won by majorities. If everyone who says "Stay the course, we are behind Pres. Bush 100%" AND everyone who supports impeachment now, Cindy Sheehan, etc. were to be counted, my guess is that they would be less than 20% of the population.

It would be better to expend the effort on replacing Smith and Walden than on anger at the folks in DC not doing things immediately. Lasting change usually doesn't happen overnight.

I have a slightly different take on this over at "Chuck for", click my name.

Thank you LT. Well stated.

I am sickened and disgusted by the Bush/Cheney regime but the thought of Sheehan running against Pelosi if the Speaker doesn't present impeachment papers in two weeks is stomach-turning. I empathize with Sheehan for the grief she has been dealt since losing her son and commend her for her valor in keeping Bush on his toes. But for her to threaten Pelosi (hopefully a bluff) just splits the party into factions whose energy would be best used in presenting a united front and moving forward.

I am a proud Democrat but am getting tired of threats coming from within the party stating you better do this or do that and therefore trying to dictate policy within the party. In 16 months we're going to have a new president who will be held accountable, will have messes to clean up and will, most likely, God willing, be a Democrat. Our energy needs to focus on the future. Trying Bush/Cheney as private citizens appears to me to be a better idea then presenting impeachment articles that would drag down other important legislation in Congress.

The last thing I would want to do is let Bush/Cheney off the hook but we risk losing the Independents who have moved left more out of an intense disgust with Bush; but not because of any Democratic policies. We lose them, we could lose the election. What do the Democrats plan to do, what is our future, what are our ideas, etc. If impeaching Bush/Cheney is one of them it should be on the bottom of the list...

You are spot on T.A. I completely empathize with people like Cindy Sheehan. Unfortunately I think she is lashing out because she was so mad at Republicans that she thought even a tiny minority in Congress would be enough to immediately stop the war. Look, by passing the TEMPORARY war supplemental when they did they were force at least 4 Republican Senators to jump ship. At least 2 other Republicans are saying there are more about to. By the time they have to repass that bill there will may be enough Republicans who have stuck their tails between their legs and finally split off from Bush that they may actually have enough votes to tell Bush to go f%&* himself.

Also...does anyone know how long the Watergate investigations went on? Sure the Clinton impeachment only took 4 months but everyone knew it was completely partisan and had absolutely no chance of working. Watergate was successful and if I remember my history well enough those investigations took years and they also ended up with enough proof to make SANE Republicans with a consience like Barry Goldwater go to Nixon and say they would support an impeachment. Name 3 Republican Senators that would do that now? Do it...if you can you get a cookie.

Yes there may be time for an impeachment. Give the Congress a chance though. Investigations have to happen and if they work out in our favor we may get an impeachment that happens fast but the fact of the matter is we're still probably 6 months to a year away. You just have to face facts. Our majority is based on a lot of red constituencies that voted for VERY moderate Democrats and they were elected by very narrow margins. The Republicans redistricted over those 12 years they had the Dems by the balls. Don't sell out the Democratic party because they haven't been able to get our troops out of Iraq and impeach a President in 6 months. I wish it would happen but at some point people like Cindy Sheehan have to face reality. I have a lot of heart for people like her but results like what she wants don't happen overnight.

"What your calculus fails to take into account is the lasting and dire impact NOT impeaching Bush/Cheney ..."

The damage that's been done will not be undone by simply allowing them to exit office unscathed. For me, what's even sadder than the crimes committed by this crowd is the precedent set by Congress in not meeting their constitutional responsibility. The notion that there's not enough time left to impeach rings hollow. It's not about time or the next election cycle, it's about doing what's right.

lestatdelc Again, at the height of Vietnam, not one General (retired or otherwise) spoke out against a sitting CnC.

Can't find a quote against the C-in-C but General David M. Shoup, former US Marine Commandant and recipient of the Medal of Honor, had this to say in 1966:

"I don't think,the whole of Southeast Asia, as related to the present and future safety and freedom of the people of this country, is worth the life or limb of a single American [and] I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these [Third World] nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own.... And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the "haves" refuse to share with the "have-nots" by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Americans."

General Shoup served under General Smedley Butler ("War is a racket") in China

"Remember how much got done when the Republicans tried to make oral sex an impeachable offense?"

Odd, I thought that Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.

You do your credibility no favors when you so ridiculously mischaracterize the reason for Clinton's impeachment.

Not that your breathless compatriots on this site care about credibility.

Don't sell out the Democratic party because they haven't been able to get our troops out of Iraq and impeach a President in 6 months. Absolutely. I'm glad someone said this. If we jump ship because our elected Dems can't undo in 6 months what it took the R's 12 years to do (namely, currently Washington culture), then we'll deserve what we get when the R's come back into power.

The notion that there's not enough time left to impeach rings hollow. It's not about time or the next election cycle, it's about doing what's right. Actually, it's all about time and the next election cycle, because after that, Bush won't be President anymore and impeachment won't be an option. And time is not on our side. Given how long the Administration and the R's have been able to drag out this US Atty's scandal, I have no doubt that they could delay impeachment proceedings until Bush&Co. have left office. Personally, I'd rather see a tangible victory in the form of withdrawal of troops than an attempt at an unlikely and merely symbolic victory in the form of impeachment proceedings.

TA, thank you for your remarks on impeachment, but even more for the comments about Democratic in-fighting. They are right on the mark; until we decide we'd rather fight Republicans instead of each other, our elected Dems aren't going to get where we want them to go.

we Democrats are busily engaged in fighting each other and not working together.

It is understandable that Democrats fight among each other. The party gets some sorry specimens for candidates and there is a faction within the party that wants it to be what it claims to be - the party of the people - but isn't. I'm an independent who votes mostly for Democrats and was prepared to vote for Gore in 2000, but he ran a pathetic campaign and was too obviously a phony to get my vote. Kerry followed Gore's playbook or consultants who went to the same sorry school as Gore's. I held my nose and voted for Kerry but only because he wore the anybody-but-Bush mantle. I would rather have voted for his wife. She had the guts to be honest and say what she believed in. Now it looks like the oligarchs in the party are going to foist Hillary on us. If the Democrats want my vote and those of other independents they had better hope the Republicans come up with a candidate that makes it blatantly obvious that he will be another Bush and Hillary will be a significantly lesser evil.

I vote with jeffk. The only impeachment articles needed are for Darth Cheney. As many of the Commenters point out, the process and the hearings will be good for keeping all of the egregious conduct and policies of this administration right out front.

This limited approach allows the Senate to continue to function in other legislative areas. If it were to succeed, it would also remove the real political center of this "administration".

I predict that several Republican Senators, including Collins of Maine and Coleman of Minnesote, might vote "yes", so, although the final vote will probably fail, there could be a majority for impeachment.

Paul Motta and East Bank Thom effectively destroyed T.A. Barnhart's arguments.

Congress takes and oath to protect and defend the constitution. They do not take an oath to protect and defend their political parties.

According to T.A. We need to keep our eye on what matters: ending the war and winning in 2008. Nothing else matters.

The rule of law doesn't matter? Isn't that the same argument the Bush administration uses to justify its criminal behavior? The end justifies the means? I don't buy it.

Nancy Pelosi's cowardice in announcing that she would NOT impeach the President was inexcusable. I'm glad someone's running against her and I'll be happy to send money to her. It is Cindy's right and duty as a citizen to take action if she sees something she disagrees with. Good for her!

Congress, it's your JOB to enforce the law if it's been broken. It's your JOB to impeach if evidence of violations of the oath of office and the law occurs.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen but do your job. Otherwise the Democrats that were voted in will be voted out again and prove that there's no difference between the two parties and it's time for a change.

After the Democratic nomination, I'm changing my party affiliation from Democrat to Independent. My husband has already registered as an independent and left the Democrats.

If people don't agree w/ impeachment it's up to Congress to show LEADERSHIP to persuade people that an impeachment is a just course of action. If they can't, then they should get out.

If memory serves, after the Republicans made fools of themselves for impeaching Clinton, they won in 2000 not only the White House, but both houses of Congress. Thus began, in the wake of the impeachment follies, our long national nightmare.

So please spare us the doomsday scenario of the Dems blowing their chances in 2008 should they pursue the much deserved impeachment of George W. Bush.

Says Sally: Congress, it's your JOB to enforce the law if it's been broken. It's your JOB to impeach if evidence of violations of the oath of office and the law occurs.

No, it is NOT the job of Congress to enforce the law if it's been broken. That responsibility belongs to the Executive branch. If we can all return to our elementary school social studies class for a moment, we'll recall that when it comes to the law, the Legislative Makes, the Judiciary Interprets, and the Executive Enforces. The problem with the rule of law in this country is that the Executive branch has failed in this duty (as in others), thus leaving it to other branches of government to try and pick up the slack. The Legislative branch's responsibility in the broad sense is to investigate, as fully as possible, the need for enforcement of the law, so that the enforcement wing of the Executive branch has enough evidence to take action.

In the specific case of our current Administration, the Legislative branch needs to replace Alberto Gonzales with an Attorney General who will fully and honestly exercise his enforcement powers, even if that means against his own boss, and who will not pressure lower court judges to pass rulings supporting the Administration's preferred position. Congress won't help the country by trying to take over the enforcement duties of the Executive branch and further muddying the checks-and-balances waters. Instead, they need to repair the institutions the current Administration has damaged.

Sally,

I realize you're mad but think about this. I don't think there is a Democrat in Congress that wouldn't vote for impeachment. I'm fairly certain that only 1 or 2 Republicans would defect their own party at this point and vote with the Democrats. The Dems could railroad impeachment in the house but never through the Senate. If you don't understand that you're living in a dreamworld. Why would they waste their time on something like impeachment right now. They are doing exactly what they should be doing which is making the Bush administration more corrupt than Nixon's (they are) and making any Republican that sticks behind Bush look like he's supporting a criminal (they are). Cover of USA Today said Bush was at 29% approval. Grow up and quit blaming Democrats for Republican obstruction. You obviously have no idea the way Congress works if you think impeachment and ending a war can happen in 6 months with a tiny minority in both the House and Senate. I understand you're upset but you are directing your anger in the wrong direction. Nancy Pelosi is the first female Speaker of the House and I can assure no a coward doesn't just get handed that position in the good ole boys club. She is no coward.

Sally: Paul Motta and East Bank Thom effectively destroyed T.A. Barnhart's arguments.

Thank you so much, Sally. I was thinking, "Is it just me? Does nobody give a damn about justice any more? First, the newly elected Democratic majority, but now BlueOregon?!" We need to scream your question from the highest mountain tops:

"The rule of law doesn't matter?"

Above all!

read what you said again, and understand it: you're saying i don't give a damn about justice because i oppose impeachment.

o.k., t.a.... I reread it and don't find your fanciful claim. Suggest you invest in a new pair of (non-rose-colored) glasses.

would you like to meet me in person and tell me to my face that i don't give a damn, that, to me, the rule of law doesn't matter?

What? Are you calling me out now? Ya know, i tried the civil exchange route. Thanks T.A. for being such a fine leader in the big blue tent. By the way, have you found the right verbiage yet to tell Cindy Sheehan to "go to hell"? I'm praying you still have some pearls of wisdom to share, revered elder.

Congress persons take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Oh well, we'll do that later, somehow. It's just an oath, just words. Never mind that the Constitution provides a process (impeachment) for exactly the situation we are in now with Administration officials making a mockery of law and the Constitution. The Constitution will come back to life after the next election, right, so why bother upholding the Constitution and our laws now? Maybe we should wait until they bomb Iran. As Glen Ford has said, if the administration can ignore the law, then there are no laws, and Congress may as well go home. And future imperial Presidents need not fear opposition. Timidity and selling out principles is not how Democrats win elections, it's how they lose elections. Current investigations in Congress will lead naturally to the next level, which is impeachment. Trying and failing, while educating the public in the process, is better than not even trying. Impeachment is a legitimate process, let the process work. Maybe the votes are not there; so be it. Are Democrats going to be recorded in history as the party that didn't fight back when the worst administration in history was ruining the country? Impeachment won't solve everything, but it should not be "off the table" as if it were so radical as to be unthinkable. The founders foresaw this; they didn't want us to have to wait four years to fire a President who was running amok. It is our duty and our right. Just talking about it is the first step, so people get used to the idea. Embrace it, as many are doing. I can now look across the street and see my neighbor's sign "Impeach". :) As for all getting along, this debate is called democracy. It's just what we should be doing.

Congress is the ONLY branch of government that can correct the abuses of the Executive branch. By refusing to take action--both Republicans and Democrats--they're abdicating their duty and violating their oath. Pointing fingers at the other "obstructionist" party is the exact same phrasing the Republicans and their rightwing echo chamber employ. It doesn't wash.

There's an old adage in English Common Law that Silence Implies Consent. Nancy Pelosi eliminated the most important tool Congress has. This is cowardly, there's no other way to describe it. If she wanted an easy job, she shouldn't be in government.

So who is supposed to go to bat for the American public when Congress refuses to?

Of course I'm angry. Anyone who's followed politics during the past 40 years would be angry. This is the most corrupt administration in history and the Republicans and Democrats have a duty to uphold the law and uphold their responsibility under the law.

By refusing to consider to impeach, it gives a free pass to the government to continue to torture, kill, maim, falsely imprison, smear, libel, slander, destroy the military, steal, and influence peddle IN OUR NAME.

As for the idea that Democrats shouldn't argue w/ each other. Doesn't anyone remember the 1968 Democratic convention in the Democrat-stronghold of Chicago? Democrats were beating other Democrats in the streets. At least today we confine our arguments online or in town meetings. I'd say that's progress. But we'll never stop arguing and that's healthy.

Also, the idea that the Republicans will "play nice" if the Democrats avoid impeachment is foolish. The Republicans and their partners in the press will continue to trash the Democrats no matter what they do. Look at Harry Reid, "Under the policies of this administration, the war's lost" becomes "The war's lost" Democrats will be slandered no matter how they act. Why not act with courage and integrity? Why not do their job?

George Bush has been a lousy President? YES.

George Bush is the worst President in U.S. history? Maybe. He has some stiff competition (Warren Harding, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ulysses Grant, etc.)

George Bush should be impeached and convicted? No. It would do no one any good. It would do for the Democrats what the Clinton impeachment did for the Republicans. Democrats don't need to sink to that level. Fight him politically for the next 1 1/2 years and work to elect a better successor.

George Bush convicted for war crimes and given a life sentence? I think this qualifies as Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Paul Motta hit the nail on the head. All this garbage about "not having the votes" is nonsense. A 50% vote in the House gets the impeachment investigation going forward and will get a special prosecutor with subpoena power, which means that for once we will be able to compel this administration to testify on record, in committee, and turn over records when requested. In other words, we will finally start to see behind the stonewall and whitewash.

Impeachment is the right thing to do. Bush has National Security Presidential Directive 51 that will give him total control over state police and national guard resources, in the case of some vaguely defined national emergency. Basically the man who jokes about how much easier life would be if he were a dictator will have dictatorial powers. One emergency is all they need to seize on. If you don't see the urgency in this, why don't you consider how disasterously Katrina was handled and apply that to the entire nation. Look at how much regard Bush has for legal integrity when it comes to attorney-gate or Libby-gate.

Only when the American people demand that members of Congress uphold their oaths of office and begin impeachment as a matter of principal and constitutional law will the discovery process actually begin. Only when public outcry reaches this critical amplitude will Congress be forced to react to public pressure instead of globalist agendae of big corporations and modern robber barons.

The Republicans went on to capture the White House and hold majorities in both houses of Congress following the impeachment of Clinton. They lost Congress on the performance of Bush.

This discussion is all about losing the votes >>>of Republicans<<<. As a Democrat, I don't know if I'm going to vote Independent, not vote at all, or vote Republican.

Obviously my vote doesn't matter, so it won't be missed.

I probably will vote, but that vote will be one that sends the message "you are fired" to the part of the Democratic party that is calling the shots (blanks) now.

I am not sure I understand the impeachment plan. Impeach Bush. Hello, President Dick Cheney! Consider, there might actually be a scenario worse than President Bush.

Impeach both of them! Hello, President Nancy Pelosi! Sixteen Republican senators are going to vote for that? Not!

Ironically, the Clinton impeachment and the 2000 election show that voters won't necessarily punish the party that impeaches a president. So there is no political disincentive to impeach, even if the chances of conviction and removal from office are remote.

I think the problem with TJ's argument is that he seems as passionate about winning the next election as he does about ending the war. He sounds too much like a party hack. Focus only on ending the war! Now THAT is something people will unite behind.

I don't see the tie. The war should be over before the next election. This is achievable and should be the focus.

Impeach Gonzales Impeach Cheney Impeach Bush

Simple.

Want to stop the war in Iraq? Dry up the funding for the 125,000 contractors and mercenaries. After the profit incentive leaves, so will the Bush administration. Disallow privatization of Iraqi assets.

Yes, Bush is worse than Nixon or any other President. When Nixon signed a minimum wage into law, one person working full time could support three people above the poverty line. Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, reestablished contact w/ China, established detente w/ Russia, established peace initiatives with Israel, and expanded civil rights and EEOC enforcement budget by over ten times LBJ's administration--legislation passed by a Democratic majority most of the time. That was a bad President. What do you think it makes Bush as a President?

Nixon was impeached for bugging Democrats. Bush gets a pass for bugging the entire country.

You don't give up because "maybe it won't work".

Enough excuses. It's past time for Congress to do their job.

I want to end the occupation yesterday and bring the troops home today, but something very interesting was pointed out last night on Ray Taliaferro's radio show on KGO San Francisco...

No matter how much we defund the "War," the only person who can actually bring the troops home is Bush. Congress cannot force the troops home, they can only cut off additional future funding.

Yes, it is true that Congress can cut off the funds funds that are going to the mercenaries, and these contractors would likely get out because they are there for the money, but the regular troops could be forced to stay. Bush is too proud and dishonest to admit his reasons for invading and continuing the occupation; he would likely start another war (Iran) in an effort to manufacture enough patriotism to rally a few dumb suckers to enlist (or stay in) and to justify keeping the existing soldiers in the Middle East. He will never allow the troops to come home -- never -- and I believe that there is enough money to keep the regular troops there until he scurries out of office. This is why we need to impeach Bush and Cheney now. Too many lives will continue to be wasted, too many tax dollars will continue to be stolen, and too much faith in our justice system will ooze away.

I personally believe that there will be a number of Democrats across the country who will defect from the Democratic Party because of the reluctance to put the heat on Bush and Cheney. I already have several Democratic friends who have done this in the past month.

Neither of these bastards can stomach the idea of being impeached, so it's time to quit bluffing and lay down the aces. There has to be continued investigations and there has to be an effort to impeach. Murder and theft are just that -- murder and theft. And Bush and Cheney are the criminals.

I'm preparing a longer post offline, but this just occurred to me. I used to be very "churchy" and it struck me as a kid, how sad and ironic it was that the even the "protestant" church was so replete with splits. So too, the Democratic party. In the one denomination, you've got those who evidence the last vestiges of the high church. They tend to be traditionalists, stuck in the mud. Then you've got the St. Francis of Assisi types, running naked from cause to cause. This tension between action and perceived inaction all too often splits congregations and communities of cause. For gawds sake, i'm not saying that anybody here belongs in the two groups just described. Progressives split into as many groups as they can find acronyms. Remember the People's Front of Judea. Splitter!

I would just like to say this to those who time and time again seem to oppose the bold move... it is better to fight and fail than to fear defeat and not fight at all.

[truth in advertising... i was in a recent accident, and the meds are starting to kick in...]

Nixon was impeached for bugging Democrats. Bush gets a pass for bugging the entire country.

Sally, I'm sorry but I need to correct you again. Nixon was not impeached for bugging Democrats. He was impeached for secretly and illegally invading Cambodia without the consent of Congress. If we're going to be making historical comparisons, I think it's important that we make accurate ones.

That said, I think the Nixon impeachment proceedings have some important lessons for us here. Nixon's Congress didn't start out by going directly from "Hey, there's some weird stuff going on," to "Impeach the President!" They started investigating. They pulled down Nixon's advisors, political appointees, and Cabinet officials. They drew a circle around Nixon's White House and slowly drew it in tighter and tighter, so that when it came to be the President's turn for justice, members of both political parties were sufficiently disgusted to support impeachment.

Right now, we aren't at that stage in this country. We're just beginning to draw the circle around the White House, and this White House is a lot smarter than Nixon's was (not to mention having the example of Nixon for what not to do--remember that some people in Bush's White House also worked for Nixon). We need to start with the people who carried out Bush's directives, then use their testimony to make moves towards the policy masterminds. If this is a comparison to Watergate, then I think we're still at the stage where the Grand Jury handed down its first abbreviated list of indictments.

Blueshift>The First article of impeachment against Nixon. You can google "Daniel Ellsworth" "Watergate" "Democratic National Headquarters" to get more information.

Articles of Impeachment Adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary July 27, 1974

Article 1 RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

ARTICLE 1

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

1. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

1. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;

2. approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;

3. interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

4. approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;

5. endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;

6. disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;

7. making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

8. endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Adopted 27-11 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, at 7.07pm on Saturday, 27th July, 1974, in Room 2141 of the Rayburn Office Building, Washington D.C.

* Listen to the roll call of the Judiciary Committee

Nate, I think you are just not cynical enough about the political process. You wonder where the Republican votes will come from to end the war.

Look to the US Senate. In 2008, 22 of 33 US senators up for election will be Republicans. Those guys are staring at polls showing nearly 70% of us want the US out of Iraq. Loyalty to a sitting president is important to Republicans, but political survival will always trump loyalty. Those 22 Republicans are NOT going to let a sentimental virtue like loyalty interfere with their political survival. Gordon Smith is not the only one seeing the handwriting on the wall on this issue, he is just the first. The cascade of Republicans who will oppose the war is just starting. Count on it. It will happen.

If we unite on opposition to the war, we will win. That's where the focus should be now.

A million dead Iraqis, 3600 dead American troops, 4 million Iraqi refugees, illegal invasion and occupation based entirely on lies, Iraq's infrastructure destroyed, their landscape poisoned with depleted uranium fallout from our weapons, threatening to attack Iran (another violation of international law)....

....Public admission to a felony by the President of the United States (warrantless spying on American citizens), defiant promise by same president to continue perpetrating said felony, intentional revelation of the identity of a covert CIA operative, rampant politicization of the United States Department of Justice, refusal to submit to constitutionally mandated, on the record oversight by congressional investigators, torture, illegal rendition, suspension of habeas corpus, holding detainees without charges, trial or access to counsel, claiming and executing authority which does not exist under the Constitution that every president swears to preserve, protect and defend....

And you're more concerned with positioning democrats for 2008 than bringing the most heinous criminals in the history of American government to justice?

Not exactly a great strategy for winning the hearts and minds of a country that is quickly waking up to a Congress that is refusing to fulfill its election mandate.

Funny that you sould refer to democrats attacking each other as a "circular firing squad." It fits right in with your ridiculously circular logic:

"These bastards will never be brought to the kind of justice that will befit their crimes. We can cry for justice and the rule of law — both of which remain in dire condition — but destroying what remains of this Congress' term, and possibly a future under Democratic guidance, will not bring justice to anyone."

Can the anti-accountability, anti-justice Beltway democrats and writers like you really be as pitifully ignorant as you appear, or are you actually all covert advocates of one-party fascist rule?

Yes Sally, I understand that the articles of impeachment list all of Nixon's "high crimes and misdemeanors," including unlawfully entering the DNC headquarters. The point I was trying to make was that the impeachment proceedings were started because of Nixon's illegal invasion of Cambodia, not because of domestic spying. Domestic spying just wasn't enough to get impeachment going. I'm certainly not trying to argue that domestic spying is okay--it's not, and it's a crime. But just as Nixon's Congress did not impeach the President until the revealed crimes were incredibly severe, I don't think we've uncovered severe enough crimes on Bush's part to make Republicans swallow their partisanship and do what needs to be done.

Blueshift>You've been misinformed. It was illegal wiretapping and the Watergate burglary that undid the President. Congress found a backbone (Republicans and Democrats) who voted to cut off funding to the war and impeach the President.

The illegal bombing of Cambodia was barely reported in the media. It was the Republicans and Democrats who finally said "Enough is enough" and voted to impeach.

There isn't a single charge against Nixon that doesn't apply to this administration. The Bush administration criminal conduct exceeds anything done in previous administrations.

John Conyers may prepare impeachment papers against Bush. Today another congressional rep signed on to Kucinicich's impeachment bill against Cheney. They're moving slowly, but they're moving and it's up to us to pressure our legislature to hold them to account.

Please. The dems have the numbers in Congress to stop the funding of the war. This is what they CAMPAIGNED on. The truth is that they know this will be seen as cut and run by a large chunk of their constituents (correctly by the way). Add to that no plan from here on out, and they know it is political suicide. They are going to wait for '08 to save their skin and blame everything on the previous admin, standard operating procedure. Dems, your party has no balls either, so climb off the high horse and hold your own democrat senators and reps responsible, you wanted them, you got them. Impeachment, etc, is just a humongous waste of time for the party of the people. How about fixing JUST ONE THING!! PICK ONE, ANYTHING? (Note: raising our taxes is not a fix....) Not so easy when you have the power, eh?

Impeachment is not mutually exclusive with ending the war.

Nixon and the Vietnamese war ended with the same President in the same term. Why should you believe this is different?

to Sally, Thom and others who believe they know the Absolute Truth in this matter: my older son joined the Oregon Natl Guard this year [...]impeachment is the least important thing i can think of at this point in history. ending a war matters far more.

So finally, the truth comes out. Why didn't t.a. say this in the first place instead of composing his original bogus "argument"? I already detailed the fallacies of his contention that impeachment is "the wrong thing to do" in what i believed was a courteous, well reasoned response. Nonetheless t.a. ignored this and preferred later to call me out like a schoolyard bully challenging me to "tell him to his face" what i thought. Now we know what has changed since November when t.a. used to be for impeachment (before he was against it). There's no reason for me to continue on another serious rebuttal to add to this "debate." Understandably, t.a. sees everything now as a choice between the lesser of two evils. Given such a (false) dilemma, his only priority remains now stopping the war. Presumably if Gordon Smith were a sincere war opponent and presented the promise of bringing a few more GOP votes our way, t.a. would be editorializing of late in favor of our Pendleton frozen food packer.

Picking up on Glen's point, many of us in Blue Oregon are prepared to walk and chew gum at the same time. It's fine that t.a. has changed his mind. The old road (like t.a.) is changing fast though, and he ought to get out of the way if he can't lend a hand (at least on the impeachment issue).

impeachment is the least important thing i can think of at this point in history. ending a war matters far more

The problem is ending a futile military conflict in Iraq doesn't, by itself, keep anyone's military offspring out of harms way. There's too much evidence that this current administration can think of other ways to put them in jeopardy. You want your kid out of harms way, get them out of the military.

A successful impeachment of Bush and Cheney - votes of both House and Senate in favor - says here's what happens when you institute idiot rule. Folks might be harmed by such an effort, folks other than Bush or Cheney, and that harm might require weighing the worth of such an effort.

That, it seems to me, is where we are right now. Nobody is safe - one way or the other folks will be in harm's way - even if they are cowering in their spider hole.

Someone tried to make this clear but I'll reiterate. In order to bring down the White House you need a lot of people in on it. Dems and Repubs. Most of the people reading this blog are progressives and understand the high crimes and misdemeanors. We get it. If you expand yourself outside of Portland you'll get the idea that a lot of people would see impeachment proceedings against Bush as partisan bickering and would get a bad taste in their mouths. This isn't Nixon. READ THIS. Republicans once didn't used to be like this. Republicans in the 1970s were like moderates now. Republicans are 100% different now. Hell, these aren't even the same Republicans elected in 1994. The Republicans have gotten so into fear mongering they've even got members of their own party aboard because they know they'll get lynched if they jump ship. The rule of law doesn't matter to them...its only party loyalty.

This just frankly disgusts me. We are so close to capturing majorities in the house, senate and maybe the presidency and there are a bunch of jokers willing to sell out the party because they won't impeach W. Well..its been 6 months since the Dems got SLIM majorities in the Senate and House. Sure 22 of 33 Senators are Repubs. We live in Oregon and although I like Steve Novick he's the only person to step up to take on Gordo? Seriously? He's a good guy and would make a great Senator but he's not exactly a heavyweight that is going to command a lot of press. I feel sick that Kitzhaber won't step up but I understand why he wouldn't. How do you think they feel in those states that are really Republican? South Carolina...you get the idea...we're a blue state that can only find a lightweight to run against a weak Senator...figure it out

Look...let the Dems build a case. If you think what they have now is a case you're a lost cause because it only makes sense to Dems. Give them time...they're going to make the White House look worse and worse and worse. With time more Republicans will bail on the President. It's just the fact of the matter. If you step back there really isn't anything that would get public opinion behind impeachment right now. What were the numbers when Nixon went? Sure Bush's 29% approval rating sucks but only 45% of us want him impeached...what was Nixons...28% approval and 71% wanting impeachment...

Politics is timing. The fat congress of the 80s got rocked by Newt and his contract with america. The Repubs were out of control for so long by then in hurt. They had the right timing. You've got Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Pat Leahy getting after it. Give it some time before you join the list of Repubs that say Dems are gutless.

More than half people polled support impeaching Vice President Cheney. John Conyers is head of the Judiciary committee and has prepared impeachment against Cheney w/ HRes 333. Ask Congressman Wu (or your rep) to sign on as a cosponsor.

You can contact your rep here: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Over 900,000 have signed on to impeach Bush here: www.VoteToImpeach.org

Only 25% of the registered voters self-identify as Republicans. Democrats and Republicans with integrity have an unprecedented opportunity to end this criminal enterprise.

Also, read the letters section of the Oregonian today. Every Republican doesn't agree with Bush's actions.

The dems have the numbers in Congress to stop the funding of the war.

This is a complete fallacy.

This is how you do it, you send a funding bill to the President with a new withdrawal strategy included. You keep on doing this over and over, one way or the other the Republicans keep on blocking it, or the President vetos it.

The funding runs out because the Republicans would not pass a funding bill.

You're all engaging in a pointless debate..."End the war with or without impeachment?" The US isn't calling the shots on when this war will end...the islamofascists are.

Don't take my word for it, take the word of OBL five years prior to the invasion of Iraq: "To kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim." Osama bin Laden In Fatwa entitled Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders World Islamic Front Statement, February 28, 1998

(Maybe one of you can tell John Edwards that camels don't wear bumper stickers).

OK, if I am understanding the above posts, the biggest argument against impeachment is that the Democrats' time and energy could be better spent trying to end the war and win the next election. Then here is my question.

What if we don't impeach AND we lose the election? Then what have we gained by avoiding the issue of impeachment?

Based on the results of the last two presidential elections, don't you agree that there is some chance that the Republicans will find a way to steal votes from critical states and possibly even "win" again? Aren't there still some Diebold machines out there just waiting to give the election to Republicans again?

I am just not as optimistic about the integrity of our election system as some Dems seem to be that I can look at a Democratic victory in 2008 as a 'sure thing.' I hope the Dems in office now will do everything in their power to bring back some accountability in the White House in case this is their only chance to do it.

Oops, I broke my own rule. We need to break the Republican's framing of the debacle in Iraq as a "war." It is an occupation. You cannot win or lose an occupation, you can only end it. And the sooner the better.

T.A. could not be more wrong. He writes:

"We need to keep our eye on what matters: ending the war and winning in 2008. Nothing else matters."

Both of these are trivial compared to the destruction of Constitutional governmence being wrecked by the Shrubbery. The prospect of the globe's only superpower unrestrained by even it's own people is indeed a terrifying one. Impeachment is the way to recover the republic.

I agree with ducklady. This is not war in Iraq. It is an imperial occupation.

Much as I and many others might like to see Bush/Cheney impeached or otherwise "punished", T.A. is right: the focus must be on ending the invasion/occupation of Iraq and increasing Demo majorities so that we can have some REAL accomplishments in this nation. Another consideration for those who cannot give up on their dreams of impeachment: even if used as a harrassment tactic to hold Cheney's feet to the fire, the Republicans and the public at large would likely just see this as payback (for Clinton) or just as the harrassment it would be, and therefore the net result would be "Well, there go those stupid Dems spending all their/our time, money and energy on punitive actions and not keeping their eyes on the ball." There are other ways (oversight investigations, etc.) to keep the Bush/Cheney agenda dampened down, but impeachment, as sweet as it may sound, is just a Siren call to lure us overboard, and we desparately need to make landfall...

Steve S, is there any crime that Bush/Cheney may commit that might warrant impeachment or is your fear of what nasty things the Republican so great that you're willing to give them a pass on everything?

Seriously, either you believe that high crimes have been committed or you don't. If you do, and oppose impeachment, you are advocating a path which weakens our democracy. I can't think of any issue more critical, not even the occupation (which will end as soon as the Democrats stop funding it).

Steve S, T.A. and others can't see politics as other than a tactical struggle between Democrats and Republicans. Constitution? Democratic governance? These are trivial matters in their minds. No wonder cynicism over government and political parties in particular continues to grow.

It is not those calling for impeachment who are playing petty politics. It is those warning against impeachment who have lost sight of the big picture.

Steve S, T.A. and others can't see politics as other than a tactical struggle between Democrats and Republicans.

Not knowing Steve or t.a., i don't have the where with all to make such sweeping judgments. Mr. Barnhart used to support impeachment and it's more likely that a spoonful of honey will persuade him that he was right before and that impeachment is right, right now. Or we could see what a cup of vinegar might yield.

As for Steve S, my questions weren't rhetorical, nor were they meant to be cynical. Do you believe that Bush or Cheney have committed any impeachable offenses?

Thom,

Honey is appropriate when one is seeking a favor, but not when one is pointing out errors in thinking. Someone cajoled to take a position is just as likely to be cajoled in the opposite direction and so makes an unreliable ally.

I see Tom C's debate style has not changed, still falling back on character assassination when he cannot win a debate with reasonable argument. What does he know about how his opponents value the Constitution? Does he seek to implement the circular firing squad?

Bush has been weakened, but it happened after he catapulted not only the propaganda, but the power of the Administration stifle dissent. That impeachment is warranted can be true, and that immediate prosecution of it would fail and redound to the benefit of the criminal enterprise we all seek to bring down.

And Ed has still not figured out the difference between being told that he is wrong and being told that he is worthless. He should try therapy.

By the way, I employ a different style when talking with children under age seven. They have have developmental reasons for seeing everything through the lens of their ego.

Thanks for demonstating the truth of my assertion of the scurrilous nature of your commentary.

The truth remains that you still have not justified your position in opposition to T.A.

Ed,

T.A. did that himself when he wrote:

We need to keep our eye on what matters: ending the war and winning in 2008. Nothing else matters.

These certainly matter, but they are minor compared to preserving operation of the Constitution. Besides, Iraq is an imperial occupation, not a war. If the troops are just shifted to some other colony, then nothing of long-term worth is won. We'll just destroy someone else's country in defense of oil, er, democracy.

I do not want Bush to succeed in establishing the unitary executive, but we need to be smart in persuing him, and not go off half-cocked.

Ed,

I couldn't agree more that we need to act carefully and intelligently. Just because Republicans made impeachment into a circus doesn't mean Democrats need to follow suit. Dennis Kucinich's bill of impeachment of the VP [HR333] is well thought out and would help to end the Iraq misadventure - and prevent new ones. I think going after Cheney makes sense as we have more documentation of his shenanigans and he is, after all, the de facto leader in foreign affairs.

Regarding torridjoe's comment on islamofascists, it's important to realize that these thugs were funded and aided by covert US programs aimed at battling nationalism in the middle east and countering Soviet influence. To paraphrase Henry Kissinger: the Iranian mullahs and al Qaida are "our sons of a bitch." To defeat them now that they have turned on us, we need to do what we have refused to do up until now. That is, treat the people of the Moslem world fairly and with respect, not as squatters on our oilfields.

That T. A. is focussed on getting out of Iraq is understandable from someone who has flesh-and-blood at risk is understandable and defensible. He's hardly alone. I too have a son with boots on the ground there, and everyone who does wants them back in good shape.

The propaganda has been catapulted by the Administration for years that their mission is our only bulwark against terrorism at home. We have not yet completely countered that brainwashing. If we back them into a corner with impeachment now, there is still a good chance that they could panic the population into compliance with their perpetual war. They have proven themselves bestial in their political battles, and a cornered animal is extremely dangerous.

There is still time to beat them back without forcing a pitched battle we are unlikely to win outright.

Robert Parry on Impeachment