Glenn Greenwald talks about this a bit too. reading the comments over there it seems that the stakes are too high to impeach right now because there are simply not enough votes to pull it off. perhaps the worst thing that could happen would be to start an impeachment and then the cheney admin finds a way to acquit itself of all charges. that would be just terrible because there would be nothing left to do. you couldn’t try them again for the same thing because it would look like simple obstructionism.
regardless, I would still like to see the Congress go after cheney or abu gonzales. save bush for last. once cheney has been replaced then pelosi can safely start impeachment proceedings as she would no longer have a conflict of interest.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jul 16 2007 21:27 utc | 4

Because there won’t be a ‘next president’. There will be a Wartime Emergency Government by the ‘decider’.
It’s too late to impeach–invoke the 25th Amendment. In Cheney’s case, it’s not difficult to prove insanity.

Posted by: hopping madbunny | Jul 16 2007 22:09 utc | 6

Its not a Dem thing or a Repug thing, it’s a corporate thing.
The corporations are tired of working through Congress and want to cut them out.
Dealing directly through the national executive is simpler.
Usurpation of power to create a dictatorship is part of the plan. Public policy creation will move out of government entirely . . .

Posted by: Gaianne | Jul 16 2007 22:44 utc | 8

To:
“…perhaps the worst thing that could happen would be to start an impeachment and then the cheney admin finds a way to acquit itself of all charges.”
The founding fathers said:
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” – Article. I. Section 3, US Constituion
So you are wrong, Nobody is “acquitted” of any crime.
Clear?

Posted by: S Brennan | Jul 16 2007 23:23 utc | 10

GWB won the largest majority of the White vote in recent history — about 60% in 2000 & 2004
thats street cred you do’nt mess with

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 17 2007 0:15 utc | 12

On the filibuster issue, Reid today announced that he will force a debate on the Reed Levin Amendment to the DoD authorization. For detailed and reliable info including the text of Reed Levin, Bob Geiger is really the pro on all things Senate.
That said, Reed Levin like all the other legislation being considered includes the residual force exception which clearly Bush would use, particularly since the missions identified as allowing the maintenance of residual troops are the same “missions” Bush claims now (training of Iraqi forces and anti-terrorism/anti-AQ activities).
Why do they not impeach? For the same reasons they don’t deal with Iraq. First, the Dems think that Bush in the White House and chaos in Iraq assure an ’08 victory and second, the Dems do not acknowledge (or even believe) that Bush has taken on the powers of a dictator and that the Iraq occupation is a continuing war crime. Instead, they function under the delusion that “we can win” something in Iraq as well – an oil bill (and passage of the Hydro Carbon bill is included as a benchmark in all the Dem versions of Iraq legislation) and some form of “rightful role” in the Middle East.
Neither of these goals is possible since we have lost in Iraq and the only thing left is to get the troops out with the smallest number of casualties along the route. The oil bill is opposed from all sides so even if Maliki is able to force a seemingly positive vote in the Parliament, it will be meaningless as soon as he falls.
I also believe that the Dems are likely to lose in ’08 if they do *not* impeach and withdraw …

Posted by: Siun | Jul 17 2007 3:13 utc | 14

Two possibilities come to mind: Pelosi and Reid believe the the longer we stay in Iraq the greater the GOP losses, including the WH. The Dems could have a huge majority for a generation – of course, leaving the meat grinder in Iraq running as a political ploy cannot be discussed.
Second, the at-large anthrax killers have warned Dem leaders of the consequences of pushing back too hard. Strangely enough, the Dems caller ID indicates the calls are coming from the Pentagon OSP, which the Dems have assumed is a clever ploy by the terrorists. So, they are now undercover playing along with Jr. and Darth in order to apprehend the anthrax terrorists.

Posted by: Mart | Jul 17 2007 3:37 utc | 16

there’s no diff between the two parties. they both serve very narrow interests.
this is very hard for “the left” to understand. go figure.
how many times have we been through this? how many more times?

Posted by: slothrop | Jul 17 2007 3:47 utc | 18

I believe that Cheney and Bush are cowards hiding behind loyal underlings and the US military. As soon as they are backed into a corner they will start pointing fingers at each other and their peons. Impeach Cheney first and he’ll implecate those bellow him including Bush (snark but probably true). The current congressional investigation of the JD, and the Iraq War, etc. are all a waste of time, because the underlings are well trained to protect their masters based largely on the protection of Executive Privilege. Impeachment will undermine that protection and expose the underlings to prosecution or impeachment. Many will take the rap but not all. Impeach Cheney and Cheney will ‘rat’ on this hachet men (Libby et al.). The hachet men will in turn ‘rat’ on Cheney and Bush and each other. Cheney is the key. Get him and the rest will fall. And I believe that’s why the there is resistance to this process by the powers that be (Corporate America). Too much of the government would crumble which would risk revealing the full extent of the corruption including the role of the Large Corporations behind these guys like Halliburton, Exxon Moble, and the rest.

Posted by: Iron Butterfly | Jul 17 2007 4:44 utc | 20

The Senate and House just voted in favour of a huge pro Iran war stunt by 97-0 and more than I can count to 2. They could not hold a co-alition together to cut off Iraq war funding and the provision to explicitly require authorisation from Congress for war with Iran was mysteriously dumped from any bill.
Cheney and Bush are the best hope of war on Iran. The same forces that created the above votes in Congress will use / are using their power to prevent impeachment of their men in the Whitehouse.
The house does not vote 97-0 in favour of war with Iran and then impeach the guy who is going to make that war happen.

Posted by: swio | Jul 17 2007 5:14 utc | 22

All of the conspiracy ideas may well be correct but if they are they won’t go much past the inner circle of current congressional leadership. Going any further would be dangerous and un-neccessary so the machine’s thinking may be steered along this sort of path:
The dems don’t have a lot of confidence in their ability to show the voters they are the good guys unless there is a worse bugger on the paddock. Now that a kingship has been created they are determined to get a slice of it. Firstly because most of them go to sleep at night dreaming that the next king will be moi – secondly because reducing the power down to one person makes things so much ‘easier’ for corrupt officials to cater to corporate orders.
If a measure has to be affirmed by the legislative process it means that so many palms have to be greased, so many ears whispered into, that things take so long, the mugs known as the citizens of amerika may get wind of what’s up and deals be wrecked.
This way is much easier for everyone. This way is exactly the same reason that dictators, despots, kings, emperors got into power throughout history. For all their huffing and puffing about Caesar, the Roman senators would have behaved no differently than Caesar if it were one of them to be crowned emperor. Bonaparte got up because the ‘real’ power recognised how much easier it is to have only one boss to corrupt. Too many citizens decisions cause too many hiccups and ‘mistakes’. The biggest complaint from business about mixed member proportional representation where I live is ‘that it takes too long’ and worse while nobody disputes that the will of the majority has been carried more and more are arguing that the majority is ‘wrong’.
I am sorry that it has come to this in amerika not just because things are going to get much worse for everyone around the world before they get better but because I do understand the depth of betrayal many amerikans must feel. However the sooner they realise that all politicians are the problem, that the system cannot be changed from within and they need get on with changing it rather than wasting time and energy on Pelosi, or Barak, or Hilary, or Fitzy, the better because there is only one other viable option if amerikans don’t force a change themselves.
That is the the one that history teaches is not only the most likely but is also the most violent and takes the longest to ferment. That is when the empire’s angry victims, the non-citizens from nations outside of amerika come in and sort it.
The seeds of that process have been sown, the most visible being the provision of alternative reserve currencies to the US$. That doesn’t mean those who are shifting from the increasingly unstable US$ are doing so because they plan to attack, they are doing so because US$ is no longer up to the task. Foreign economies which are reliant on shifts in the US$ being relative to other shifts are finding to their detriment that is no longer so, the US$ declines while all the other currencies get stronger and that means anyone using it has taken a big hit.
The thing is though, when other countries including those considered to be ‘allies’ of amerika (ie other whitefella dominated regimes), no longer have to rely on amerika’s political stability to eat, they also no longer feel as obligated to assist in maintaining that stability. So what? Many amerikans will say “we can do it ourselves”. Maybe right now, at this point in time, but when you consider that amerika is now as energy dependent as those European nations it claimed the brass ring of ‘leader of the whiteys’ from half a century ago, it is difficult to see how amerika can maintain world domination without assistance.
From an imperialist point of view the greatest problem that Iraq has caused is just as WW2 showed the victims of colonial oppression that the european imperialists (Britain, Holland and France) could be beaten by an upstart (Japan), Iraqi resistance has shown that amerika can’t just force it’s will anywhere it chooses. That means amerika has to prove itself wherever it goes, including those places where it’s rep alone had previously got the job done. Not only is that incredibly draining on any empire, it is only a matter of time until more than one or two ‘hotspots’ occur simultaneously. That would result in amerikan defeat and humiliation. After that it would really be on.
Every main-chancing head of state around the planet would see an opportunity to ‘grab a bit back’, at the same time those few in positions of power trying to do the right thing would also see an opportunity to even things up without endangering their own people, so they hop in as well.
Those events may serve to unite amerikans initially but the track record of the type of low life that has gotten into power in the US, in other similar circumstances, in other places, and other times, says the ‘leaders’ ie the rich and powerful, wouldn’t take long to alienate the citizens. The ‘leaders’ who would be taking an economic and political hit from losing assets outside the US. So they would try and make it up by grabbing a bigger ‘share’ inside amerika.
Yeah maybe one or two would give out the smell of an oily rag for the masses but lets be honest here, we’re talking about people who equate sharing with weakness and losing.
Ordinary amerikans would wise up to that fast and the disintegration of amerikan power structures occuring on the outside would soon be mirrored on the inside.
No matter how angry I may get at the seemingly wilful refusal of ordinary amerikans to objectively consider the poisonous effect of their country’s actions on the rest of us, I wouldn’t wish the violent turmoil that would result from a forced break up of the amerikan empire on them. That wouldn’t be ‘karmic’ or ‘payback’ – the people in the firing line in that situations are most often the disempowered, the powerful generally manage to keep covering their asses.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 17 2007 5:59 utc | 24

If it were an open-and-shut case that could be through in a matter of weeks/months, then I would be all for it. But an impeachment trial will quickly get bogged down, and rather than focus on the reasons behind the impeachment charges, it will dissipate itself in political squabbles and prcedural points of order.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jul 17 2007 12:22 utc | 26

Solution for the war on Iraq, US$ 20.50

Posted by: b | Jul 17 2007 15:19 utc | 28

Pretty much what I have believed all along. One of the reasons the lies about Iraq were such an easy sell was that many ppl in the west particularly those countries which joined in the invasions wanted to believe that way they could keep their lifestyle while ostensibly ‘doing good’.
They are angry at Bush/Biar because they screwed up – hence the minuscule interest in the horrors that Iraqis are enduring.
Is it a coincidence that the english who had avoided involvement in most post WW2 colonial adventures -notably Vietnam got involved in Iraq just as their North Sea oilfield expired? Somehow I doubt it and when you consider the decisions around english involvement in colonialism were trans-generational – extending across the decades, they weren’t the result of the Bliar getting a rush of blood and it must also be acknowledged that english involvement was a reflection of tacit acknowledgement of the need to go back to stealing to survive. Well not survive – more to live as one had become accustomed to living.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 17 2007 21:33 utc | 30

Good to see you too, DeA.

Posted by: beq | Jul 17 2007 22:42 utc | 32

Is it a coincidence that the english who had avoided involvement in most post WW2 colonial adventures -notably Vietnam- got involved in Iraq just as their North Sea oilfield expired?
No it is not. Mags (Thatcher) followed on from Winnie (Churchill) to move over to the more efficient, profitable, portable, etc. energy. Facing cornucopia, she could push thru anything really. Ok, she concentrated on her version, never mind the political shading, social policies, basically, GROWTH. And it worked in a way.
Bliar knows, has know forever, that the energy situation is dire, there are few choices, and he chose, as any Brit Pol would, and will continue to do, alliance with the superpower.
50 % of world military spending must be good for something, a powerful ally is to be supported / seduced, even if poss. manipulated, why not.
Bliar, I think, tried hard to cash into old alliances, and new ones, without much success. He feels righteous, in his lights he has done his best, a noble warrior fighting for the Brit lifestyle, position in the world, and his own beliefs and personality have served him well in this effort. Lies which serve a greater purpose, etc. And that is why he was accepted and voted in, etc. despite raucous protest here and there, anti-war demos, etc.

Posted by: Noirette | Jul 18 2007 15:30 utc | 34