I rather doubt that Kieran regrets that the British aren’t even a second-rate power (though I might be wrong on that). It’d be unusual in someone of his nationality, to say the least of it.

In this sense almost everything is pointless; why single out discussions about how apathetic the public is?

It upset Democrats much. You may recall that they were in no position to do anything about it at the time, but if you look back at the period, they did try.

The founders made it clear that a situation such as we have now is precisely what they intended impeachment for. In fact, we have several situations that impeachment was intended for. Madison, for example, was explicit about a president who used the pardon power to prevent exposure of his own administration’s crimes.

They also did not think private sexual behavior was impeachable. (And Clinton was never proven to have committed perjury, so forget that.)

Bush has committed the highest crime of all: He has violated the presumption that he will act on behalf of the country rather than just for his own political purposes. This breech of the public trust is unforgivable.

And it doesn’t matter whether the present Senate will convict; as long as impeachment proceedings for the entire cabinet are underway, there can be no pardons for any of them. Moreover, as long as they don’t actually terminate impeachment proceedings with impeachment, they can keep the hearings going as long as they like. Precipitous moves by the White House while the klieg lights are on them would be much more likely to put pressure on the Senate to convict, too.

But don’t blame the public. This is what the press is supposed to be for, and the fact that the press is trying to dose us with soporifics rather than the amphetamines the situation deserves has a lot to do with why movement is so slow. Plenty of people are trying to get the subject going.

And it’s pointless talking about how apathetic the public is unless you’ve been organizing letter-writing/phone campaigns and public protest yourself. You can print out leaflets, get people together, post lists of appropriate phone numbers, make phone calls, march, whatever, but you’re having to get past a doped-up press corps and a lot of fear and inertia, so you need to do more than argue in comment threads. Make it happen. The public supported impeachment of Nixon by an overwhelming majority, and a majority already support impeachment of Cheney. They didn’t support impeachment of Clinton. They know the difference.

Which President Clinton was acquitted of by the Senate,”

And I might actually think that vindication of a sort, if the Senate had permitted the House to present it’s case before holding the vote.

The short answer to the question posed in the post is, ‘No, because the Democrats are weenies!”

It will be a slam-dunk in ‘08 with any of
H. Clinton/Obama/Edwards/Richardson. Even
Biden/Dodd/Gravel/Kucinich will have a good
shot.

I really do enjoy the way that Limey wankers
who can’t even vote are so gung-ho on booting
out the President.

Jealous that you aren’t even a second-rate
power these days?

Incorrect. Clinton’s approval ratings jumped 10 points, to 73 percent, an all-time high, after he was impeached. Disapproval of the Republican party also went up 10 points. (Clinton was more than twice as popular after being impeached than Bush is now.) His 65% approval rating when he left office is the highest of any president since 1960. The Democrats also picked up seats in the 1998 midterms.

they needed plausible counts of things like perjury and obstruction

Which President Clinton was acquitted of by the Senate, and Scooter Libby was convicted of in a court of law, yet the same people who demanded Clinton’s head dismiss Libby’s crimes as no big deal.

By the way, the Paula Jones case, the source of the perjury charge against Clinton, was dismissed. Where were all the “no underlying crime” fuckers then?

But it took them years where weeks should’ve been enough and, I suspect, they acquired this righteous sentiment for mostly the wrong reasons, like higher gasoline prices. Nah, cynicism and pessimism are fully justified here.

OTOH, I don’t think the phrase “lame duck” means what #76 implies. Lame duck president whose fate as one of the worst presidents in history is sealed – that sounds like an extremely dangerous animal.

But thanks for playing; your record of dishonesty is still at 100%

Yes, those annoyingly slow wheels of justice, how aggravating they are. It all should have been dropped as soon as the powerful people involved made it clear that they did not wish to cooperate. What a monumental waste of everyone’s time.

A technical quibble, but it addresses a really annoying fad among liberals: “Neo-conservatives”, former liberals who went over to conservatism because liberals didn’t take the threat of communism seriously enough in their opinion, were dead as a political force not long after the end of the cold war.

It’s beyond me why liberals suddenly seized on a political term with a long established meaning, to use as an essentially content free epithet. What the Hell is “neo” about Bush’s fellow travelers?

If you keep up the drumbeat long enough, people tune it out.

At this late stage in the term, there is only one reason anyone would pursue impeachment against Bush – to score political points that might pay off in 2008. By the time anything could be concluded, he would be out of office and at this point he is a lame a lame duck as there has ever been. His fate as one of the worst presidents in history is sealed and his fellow travelers, the neo-cons, are dead as a political force. His impact on the 2008 election is as near zero as anyone running as a Republican can make it – he’s poison. There is not much more to be gained politically.