When Congress fails to to three things that the Constitituion the ability to do, then all of the whining and hand wring is nothing more than moveon.org talking points.

Congress can zero out the budget faster than it can hold impeachment hearings. But if Congress is incapable of asking the public service unions to make any sacrifice, then they should just shut up.

There were several attempts to impeach Cheney in the House but I believe they died in committee. The Democrats did not have a strong majority in either house of Congress, so a measure like that would be bound to fail.

Worse, the Democrats would look like partisan witchhunters— which is how many Republicans were perceived after Clinton's impeachment. (especially when it was revealed that those leading the charge were in the midst of extramarital affairs with their own staffers!) The best we can hope for is that the next administration will investigate Bush/Cheney— but the millions of missing emails will probably help them cover their asses. Also, Cheney has not been preserving his records because he is not part of the executive branch—remember???

I agree with much of what you say, but not everything.
Where we are now leaves me bitter, because a BJ has the same weight as Nixon's fun and games. I could swallow hard and put that aside, but other considerations still bother me – a lot.

These are not policy differences, btw, These are differences over the role and rule of law.

But even going past that, I'm concerned about the international consequences.

Breaking the Geneva Convention rules means that signing a treaty with the US can be a very risky business. Bush's televised 'we do not torture' even as waterboarding was going on, is another cause of cynicism about US trustworthiness. Our word, or signature, can not be trusted. Restoring trust in the US is imperative for the next administration, as I think it would be impossible for the current one, no matter what it does.

Bringing this to a head now, would be a never ending story, as this Pres/ is a master of manipulating executive privelege to otbstuct, obstruct, obstruct. Let's not even mention Cheney.
Relative to the need to restore trust is the US are the increasing number of analysts and hsitorians who feel that both Iran's and N.Korea's pursuit of nuclear capacity is, in condierable part, due to out right fear that the US would attack them, based on Iraq and the Axis of Evil.
Despite misjudgments and miscalculations, the US has had a positive role in the world in many ways, We may have more competition now for global influence, but the US can still, and should, have a major hand in the international arena.

It's imperative then, that when a US president says 'we won't attack you under conditions xYZ, that he be believed. It is imperative that when the US signs a treaty, it can be trusted to keep its word.

Letting bygones be bygones would endanger the restoration of trust.

I actually agree with you on the basic principal. Either Impeach, or not. Once there is a new Administration in office, move the country forward, not backward.

Some of the greatest steps forward in history are when at the end of major conflicts, strong leadership choose to focus on the future. And for the love of God, please no Nazi Nuremberg trials comparisons. Don't debase the Holocaust.

Instead in our fabulous and representative Federal government we have invertebrate Democrats and delusional, greed-driven and overtly immoral Republicans running our country as our “representatives”.

The obvious “dividends” that this quality of “leadership” have brought can be summarized as an endless and expensive war that never did and never will have a well defined exit strategy or objective, an ever increasing recession through reckless setting of interest rates with no controls of borrowing but bailouts for businesses on the backs of US taxpayers while forcing wages for the US population to decrease via exportation of jobs that simultaneously enables us to finance the phenomenal growth of China so they can compete with us for natural resources while simultaneously pumping out CO2 faster than anyone imagined possible so we can all live in deserts in the near future while through the miracle of trickle down economics and globalization becoming a service economy supporting a few high enders. While one could see this all coming, I have to give credit to Bush et al for bringing it to fruition so fast.

Other that the minor details in the previous paragraph, the big problem I have is we have this thing called a Constitution that seemingly DEFINES the country and the basic rule of law in this country. The status of our Constitution is well-summarized by a joke Jay Leno said a few years ago. “The Iraqis are working on a new constitution. Why don't we let them use ours. It has served us well for more than 200 years and we're not using it any more.”

Regarding impeachment, the Constitution does not say elected officials may or may not be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. It says they SHALL be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.

This concept supported by SHAUN MULLEN of picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution we will uphold and which parts we will avoid puts you in the same dangerous and shifting and constitutionally illegal realm of Bush Co. You are now condoning and effectively doing signing statements like Bush. Pelosi and Conyers should be impeached for swearing to uphold the Constitution and then in like a Bush signing statement saying we're not going to uphold that part of the Constitution.

This is not left wing radicalism so easily dismissed as you attempted to do like a Republican politician or some speaking part from Fox News. This is maintaining a consistent rule of law. Once you begin to pick and choose which part of the law to uphold, you no longer have a rule of law.

Impeach em'

Both have openly snubbed their noses at Congress numerous times. When the GOP was rubber stamping Bush's policies, he turned a blind eye to pork-laden bills as a reward. Bush and Cheney very clearly did whatever they could to avoid Congressional oversight.

I call bullshit on that one. Bush has on several occasions, all of them in fact, denied Congress the ability to look into any of his dealings. Everything to Bush is covered under Executive Priviledge, which btw isn't even an ennumerated power in the Constitution. He has protected numerous aides from having to swear oaths and denied subpoenas for information. How is this not telling the legislative branch to go f*&ck itself? How is this not what someone would do to cover up issues he knows to be in violation of the law?

In the 90's the GOP misjudged the public's support for Clinton—most of us didn't care a hoot about his sex life—-the Dems are not going to follow down that road- which is why Pelosi promised before 2006 not to raise the issue of impeachment.

Obama won't want to waste valuable political capital dragging Bush through the mud. All it would succeed in doing is engendering sympathy for Laura Bush, much in the same way the Clinton scandal created support for Hillary.

This explains why the Congressional Dems have been gunshy, even tho the crimes of Bush/Cheney much more serious and far-reaching than Clinton's. They are also painfully aware that a segment of the country could see a move like impeachment as cowardly, partisan and unpatriotic. In other words, they are not going to risk losing the majority.

Obama, if he succeeds in his presidential bid, will not find them willing partners in bringing Bush/Cheney up on war crimes charges. Also, as unpopular as they are, there hasn't been a groundswell to impeach or prosecute from the public. (excepting liberal groups) It would probably be a huge mistake— and would be cast as a partisan witchhunt by Republicans. They may deserve to be held accountable for law-breaking but don't expect to see it happen.

What happened to all the conservative proclamations of doom when Clinton was doing a fraction of this in the 90s?

You can argue that it is a fundamental disagreement about what the foundation of the government is (I cringe when I hear even Obama talk about how his #1 priority is to protect people, which it actually isn't as the oath of office is right now) but that should take place out in the light and fully exposed for us to decide on.

I find this most telling about your reply:

Watergate and Monicagate destroyed one part of our political beliefs, and is both cause and symptomatic of the current poisoned climate in Washington. The battlelines caused by Gore vs. Bush in the Florida Supreme Court and SCOTUS are another.

Which I fully agree with, but the aftermath of those events were always about moving on “for the good of the country” instead of dealing with the underlying issues. To me a lot of the schisms are a reflection of moving on rather than confronting them head on.

If 'good of the country' is really the goal, then a hard look at what the effects of pursuing the President and his inner circle will have on the country is in order first. Not a discussion of 'did they do wrong' or even 'was it criminal', but to what affect it will have of pursued.

First, as acknowledged by most, all Presidents (and Congress) break the law at times during their administrations. All of them.

Also, I concede a strong argument can be made by those who believe everything that alleged Bush and his team did could be construed as 'High Crime and Misdemeanors'.

But recent history shows why we sometimes need to leave well enough alone. This country still suffers for the prosecution and Impeachment of Richard Nixon (not for a break-in, but for the cover-up and use of the Executive Branch agencies as his personal political tools), and for the Impeachment of Bill Clinton (not for a BJ, but for lying under oath).

Now we no longer can get through most administrations with either an Impeachment or the threat of an Impeachment being raised. And among the common traits of Washington politicians and the press is a long institutional memory, and a Mafia-level need to seek revenge upon their enemies (not killing them; simply ruining careers and reputations is sufficient).

So, now we are talking about yet a new, post-Administration form of retribution against policy disagreements (and this IS a policy disagreement, albeit one with moral overtones and accusations from both side of the issue).

If the next administration (assuming it is democratic, obviously) goes after criminal conduct proceedings based on policy, not corruption, it will set the stage for generations of retaliations and repercussions.

Watergate and Monicagate destroyed one part of our political beliefs, and is both cause and symptomatic of the current poisoned climate in Washington. The battlelines caused by Gore vs. Bush in the Florida Supreme Court and SCOTUS are another.

There are times, for the good of the country, when even what some consider reprehensible policy disagreements must be left be, indeed for the good of the country.

If, with a fully Democratic Congress currently seated, no consensus for Impeachment exists, why waiting until after the current Administration is gone to then launch the equivalent proceedings is a good idea is beyond me.

It will hamstring EVERY subsequent Administration as they deal with the difficult, relay world decisions that have to made, and that ofter are neither nice, not legal.

People keep saying that he'll be loathe too because it'll bring up stuff from past Administrations. Fine. I don't think that Clinton and/or Bush I's administrations should be immune. If the recent reports are true, I really wish that Powell will regain his sense of honor by surrendering himself and cooperating.

Like obsidian wings (hardly a raving blog) this administration has made me realize the importance of the rule of law, especially as applied to all parts of the government. I have become much more conservative in my views about Presidential power and things (at least what it used to mean) because I genuinely question whether the government is capable of having the power they do now without messing up in a way that erodes the basic point of the country.

Our leaders have committed war crimes. And yes, I am sympathetic with the view that we have always had stains on our history, but this is so different because they have codified it into our laws (both written and de facto). That is what I am more upset about anything. The fact that the system is moving towards that state is incomprehensible. It must be stopped and we need to fight for it; I'm not sure how this is a partisan issue at all.

Even if I thought their actions were necessary, I would still expect them to pay the legal price. After all, people get convicted of crimes all the time for things they do out of necessity.

To claim that the Bush Administration obliterated the separation of powers is nothing more than a moveon.org talking point.

Obama, like me, has opposed impeachment as a practical impossibility and enormous distraction, so as far as I’m concerned these folks need to buzz off.

If BJs and burglaries qualify, then torture and massive warrantless surveillance most definitely do. Impeachment shouldn't be about what's easiest or best politically. It's about removing criminals from power.

Obama’s approach will not sit well with the baying dogs of the liberal-left wing, because he seems determined to first answer the all-important question of whether there were real crimes as opposed to really bad policies

Obama is full of it on this issue. Waterboarding has long been considered a form of torture. Torture is illegal. The President and his cronies have approved waterboarding. Therefor the President has committed a “real” crime.

The same goes for Bush's approval of the NSA domestic spying program. The FISA law established that FISA court approval was necessary for domestic spying. Bush approved domestic spying outside of the FISA system. Therefor the President commited a “real” crime.