Bush? Impeached? Really? Really? Now? Why not 2 years ago when they should have? Did they really have to wait for until Scott McClellan to write a book? Scott McClellan is John Dean? Really?

DENNIS Kucinich? Really? Why isn't he running for president? Oh, right.

I guess he also went after Cheney as well but the news is none existent on this so far (9:30pm EST)

They won't vote for this. Will they? Really? This is the war vote all over again. Who's going to pass the test on this one?

Kucinich actually broke these Monday? Where the hell was the news?

Idealistic...but a non-starter.

Guess Pelosi figures it'd make a "martyr" of Bush...and him leaving in Jan. 2009 as an abject failure is better.

But it has to go up for a vote to get sent to committee. Interested to see who votes to bury it there.

I still don't get why she took impeachment off the table and feel she tied a lot of hands from actually doing some effective legislation. I don't think Pelosi is worried about martyrdom for Bush as much as a backlash (From 29%?).

The Dems didn't try to get Bush impeached because they didn't have the votes. Why walk into a political humiliation deliberately? Some of those Dems that got elected in 06 were not exactly members of the Cindy Sheehan Fan Club, if you get me.

Be that as it may, I admire Kucinich's Quixotic efforts, if only for their symbolism. Even if the symbolic meaning is that the American democratic political system is no longer functioning as it was supposed to... you know, democratically.

Checks and balances are dead, long live partisan factions!

Thank God they were able to help solve video taping abuses for the NFL.

That helped solidify a whole bunch of legacies.

Kucinich went after Cheney last year...

Let me cite from the articles of impeachment that were introduced this afternoon, Article I, that Richard Cheney had purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States armed forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security. Washington Post April 24, 2007

Impeachment is utterly impracticable. Pelosi would have to impeach both Bush & Cheney, and then the impeacher becomes the impeachable. :) But, I do like the symbolic gesture.

Whats more important is to ensure the next congress and the next president reverses the abuses of the Bush presidency. This means the reinstatement of the Geneva Conventions, the closure of Gitmo, the further denunciation of the use of torture, stoppage of outsourcing our military needs to private organizations, criminally prosecute illegal surveillance of the American public, removing signing-statements from excluding the duly enacted laws, and the enstatement of a special prosecutor.

I'm sure there are more, this is what immediately comes to mind. I just hope the 'special prosecutor' medicine doesn't do more harm than good.

It's a sad day when legitimate charges are brought against the President of the United States and nobody cares. And i agree with the impracticality of it. But it just pisses me off that Clinton I was charged literally with adultery and lying about it while Bush and co. abused a whole number of constitutionally guaranteed rights with no consequence. And he's going to use up all his pardons on his cabinet and himself in January and that will be that.

Sure. We need to reverse the changes but remember who enabled this dysfunction in the first place. A lot of the blame for the Bush legacy falls on the Senate and House for allowing him and his minions to have so much free rein over the last eight years. And I'm not just talking the Republican-controlled Senate.

The last two years have seen signing statements taking more power than the acts themselves. Refusals to answer subpeonas. Refusal to answer any questions. An abuse of power that may be whined about but never acted on. They never stood up to the WH once.

As for a symbolic jesture, people have to have some buy-in to it. to me, I see it as an empty jesture. No teeth, not because the charges are ridiculous, but because nothing will be acted upon. How can we hear any trees fall if we're standing around our living rooms swinging an ineffectual ax (new video game on Wii I guess)?

"Clinton I was charged literally with adultery"

Hysterical revisionist bullshit.

Was it lying to a grand jury? Yes. What was he lying about? Adultery. It was a witch hunt that ended up settling on the fact that Clinton lied about something in personal life than had no bearing on his office. Literally. Is that better?

Bush doesn't ever bother to have his people show up at grand juries; and if they do, they plead executive privilege which they don't have. How is right-wing historians going to explain those incidences? Or you?

Quote the section(s) of the Articles of Impeachment that charge Clinton with adultery.

Then learn what the word "literally" means.

Then see if you can find a list of which things it is alright for the Chief Executive of the nation to perjure himself about and tamper with a witness in connection with, and which it is not.

Whitewater was not an inquiry into Bill Clinton's sex life, it was an investigation of a pattern of corruption and self-dealing extending all the way back to Arkansas, and was well and publicly underway long before Bill Clinton unzipped his fly in the Oval Office.

Grow up.

And what he lied about was adultery. Not Whitewater.

And after years and millions wasted, that's all they could have charged him with. Perjury about sex. Not financial skulduggery. So, you can say it was Whitewater but it wasn't. All they could find was some whistleblower talking about some one blowing Bill's whistle.

And impeachment? They could have easily voted for censure. Instead, they decided to take the high road. And remember some of his persecutors ended up having to resign why? Because they lied to grand jury? No, because their personal affairs came under the same scrutiny and their hypocrisy was in full frontal. Others have been voted out of office because of the major parts they played in this shameful abuse of power.

No, I do agree that it is not okay to perjure yourself. And Bush does too. That is probably why he has stayed so far away from grand juries and has allowed his people to abuse the system.

And the witness tampering? What did that have to do with Whitewater?

You might consider a dozen-odd convictions and guilty pleas a waste of money, but not everybody needs to share your cavalier views about selectively enforcing the law.

Enjoy your partisan revisionist flailing.

Lets say you're right that those convictions and plea bargains justified the cost in prosecuting a standing US president.

Wouldn't you then agree that Bush should be impeached as well since his crimes against the Constitution and the people of the United States (suspending habeas corpus, invasion of privacy, overstepping executive privilege, etc.) far outnumber those of Clinton.