then the pattern of unequal treatment would be glaringly obvious even to you.

The democratic president IS held to different standards than the republican president. Had Clinton performed a sixteenth as much in the way as incompetent mismanagement as Bush then Clinton would have been - again - investigated and then impeached in zero time.

People in Washington, however, and definitely the 'so-called liberal media' act as if the very notion of investigating Bush's actions and impeaching him is somehow hideously wrong.

Again, just what would it actually take for cons and con-apologists and nervous Nelleys to concede that 'yes' Bush has committed sufficient high crimes and misdemeanors to warrant serious investigations or impeachment? Apparently committing rape and murder in public by Bush is the only thing that would now force people to concede that a republican president needs to be scrutinized and punished by congress.

Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer
the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?.........
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause...

For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,...
....The law's delay, the insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes, ...

That dread of something.....puzzles the will...
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all...'

...And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.

Hamlet, W.S.

You and Nasty Pill Lousy shouldn't have a deciding say in our American democracy. We, the majority, voted last November for change. We voted to have the clowns running this country do the right thing. We voted against the continued slaughter in Iraq for the sake of oil companies. Yet we have this neocon House leader informing us that the truly effective weapon to keep a dishonest executive from breaking out altogether is off the table. NP's action has re-energize the creeps to continue their illicit activities instead of putting fear in them. I'm calling for the Californian liberals mis-represented by her to mount a recall. She's a total waste.

Although I greatly admire Nancy Pelosi, I believe we took this off the table way to early. This aministration has far outreached the boundries of the executive branch through high crimes and misdemeanors and the congress is beholden to enforce the constitution.

As a Liberal, anti-war protester, and leader of a Democrats in a western state county, I find it quite disappointing and appalling to see cowards here who are so afraid of impeachment of a criminal president and VP, calling it "political." What ignorant fools you are! Impeachment is the constitutional way of handling a president and vice-pres who are criminal.

Pelosi is absolutely wrong. Articles of Impeachment should have been introduced immediately after the November 2006 elections. Instead, cowards in Congress and weak citizens like those posting here continued to defecate in their pants, spines still not fully grown, afraid that the nation will split, and afraid that the political system will be damaged by a justifiable procedure. What a perfect storm of stupidity.

As Den and many others have pointed out, Bush has committed impeachable acts. Therefore, he should be investigated. One cannot simply remove himself and his associates from the checks and balances that provide for our democracy.

If the House really felt as strongly as this article and the American people imply then they are just as irresponsible as Pelosi in their elected duties.

We were once a great superpower. Now we have a depressed military and dismal economic outlook. Many countries despise us. Why did the Kennedys get assassinated while people like Bush and Clinton get re-elected?

Bounder:

then the pattern of unequal treatment would be glaringly obvious even to you.

The democratic president IS held to different standards than the republican president. Had Clinton performed a sixteenth as much in the way as incompetent mismanagement as Bush then Clinton would have been - again - investigated and then impeached in zero time.

People in Washington, however, and definitely the 'so-called liberal media' act as if the very notion of investigating Bush's actions and impeaching him is somehow hideously wrong.

Again, just what would it actually take for cons and con-apologists and nervous Nelleys to concede that 'yes' Bush has committed sufficient high crimes and misdemeanors to warrant serious investigations or impeachment? Apparently committing rape and murder in public by Bush is the only thing that would now force people to concede that a republican president needs to be scrutinized and punished by congress.

[shakes head, laughs]

I find it amusing that, for once, I'm defending Pelosi and Obama, but for once they are right.

You folks' disagreements with the president are political disagreements over how he is carrying out the duties of his office. That is not what impeachment is for. For political disputes, you must go through to political process.

Impeachment is designed to punish a president for exactly what the constitution says, "high crimes and misdemeanors". You know, things like lying under oath, selling government secrets, stealing government documents, using the IRS to punish political opponents, and the like. What you are proposing the democrats impeach Bush for would be like the GOP impeaching Clinton because they thought his nucleal deal with N. Korea was bad for national security.

Excellent thinking and quality post.

I think that impeachment of the President of the United States or any other country's leader should always be carefully approched. Because it not only effects our country it also effects the world especially now with America in the position of hedgemond. Discussion of impeachment will have worldwide effects both positive and negitive. In so far as Postosi goes she is using intemadation to stop the discussion and vote of impeachment she is abusing her position as speaker to oppress the law. She is in a very dangeous position.Because she is third in line for the position of President of the United States, should something happen to the President and Vice President. The question that needs to asked here by the public do we want someone in the position of President that uses intemadation as a means of power against the people that have place their trust in her when she was elected to her position.

Deliberating creating an intelligence clearing house isdide the intelligence community which had as its mandate to FIND a reason to go to war and deliberated promoted data that the greater intelligence community labeled false.

The charge would be lying in order to start a war.

The charge would be rank failure to protect the interests of the United States once we moved into the occupation and rehabilitation phase of the Iraqi War Venture, exhibiting breathtaking incompetence or outright and self-serving corruption.

Of course there would be many other charges and none of them would be politically partisan in nature.

What you think and what I think, however, matter very little because the democrat dominated congress evidently lacks the will to carry out the 2004 election cycle mandate that they possessed.

On the other hand their refusal to act in accordance with the best interests of this nation and the laws of the land and the constitution and begin impeachment proceedings against Bush [so relax the true conservative, Bush will not be impeached], also will not matter in the long run because historians will make it very plain that the democrat leadership failed to do their job and that Bush should have been impeached, and they will teach these facts in high schools and colleges across the land.

The Bush era will go down in infamy along with McCarthyism.

Bounder:

Deliberating creating an intelligence clearing house isdide the intelligence community which had as its mandate to FIND a reason to go to war and deliberated promoted data that the greater intelligence community labeled false.

The charge would be lying in order to start a war.

The charge would be rank failure to protect the interests of the United States once we moved into the occupation and rehabilitation phase of the Iraqi War Venture, exhibiting breathtaking incompetence or outright and self-serving corruption.

Of course there would be many other charges and none of them would be politically partisan in nature.

What you think and what I think, however, matter very little because the democrat dominated congress evidently lacks the will to carry out the 2004 election cycle mandate that they possessed.

On the other hand their refusal to act in accordance with the best interests of this nation and the laws of the land and the constitution and begin impeachment proceedings against Bush [so relax the true conservative, Bush will not be impeached], also will not matter in the long run because historians will make it very plain that the democrat leadership failed to do their job and that Bush should have been impeached, and they will teach these facts in high schools and colleges across the land.

The Bush era will go down in infamy along with McCarthyism.

Except that McCarthy was right, too. The State Department really was full of communists during the '40's and '50's. Or did you miss that part?