Reply #42: What I "object" to is that every statement from the woman that does NOT explicitly call for

[Warren DeMontague]

impeachment is therefore somehow suspect.

You're right, we agree on much, and you're right, she has an admirable track record.

And if I, personally, didn't support impeachment... well, I would have to pick a different username, wouldn't I?

In practical terms, perhaps you're right- perhaps Bush's disregard of congress and law would have rendered timetables meaningless. But if what you want is real results versus empty gestures- practical results presumably being the removal of Bush and Cheney, I don't have to tell someone as well informed as you that impeachment in the House would accomplish nothing more than a symbolic victory. We would be no more likely to remove Bush from office in the Senate than Bill Clinton was likely to be removed, despite the vast differences in justifications. So what, precisely, would having the House vote to impeach right now accomplish? Remember, now, you're the one talking about this being the only real world answer to the Bush Admin.'s abuses of power. But, really, as things stand now- barring additional revelations brought public through the processes of congressional subpoenas and investigations-- we both know that Bush (and Cheney) wouldn't be removed from office. So again, you're talking about a victory which would be less substantial than passing an Iraq supplemental with timelines, because at least the Iraq bill would have given them a law that they would be forced to ignore. Again, I'm not saying the House shouldn't do it, "it" being pursue impeachment- but if your point is that an immediate impeachment process and vote in the House is the only way to "stop" Bush... well, that's not going to stop him, either.

And I don't think not mentioning the i-word at every conceivable opportunity amounts to "not willing to impeach". As we both know, much fur-flying hullaballoo has been made about Pelosi "off the table" statement (note that a "statement" is not the same thing as an "edict"). While I certainly think that some of our democrats in Congress aren't doing their jobs, (as evidenced by recent events) Lynn Woolsey isn't one of 'em. Short of one ridiculous, pandering vote regarding forcing schoolkids to recite "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, I generally trust her to do the right thing at the right time.

I question, sometimes, the logic of going after the "good guys" because they're not good enough, versus criticizing our members of congress who pull the kind of crap we saw this week. Perhaps on tactics but not essentials we differ. But you are right to call upon all our democrats for bold actions, I think. Peace.