Kitt,

Don't get confused about what can be accomplished by impeachment. Impeachment is like a grand jury indictment and good prosecutors don't go for an indictment unless they think they have a really good chance of getting a conviction. Impeachment is easy. As I say, the Democratic House can vote impeachment any time they want to. It only takes a simple majority, and as Gerald Ford pointed out in 1970, "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." But conviction is more difficult. It takes a two-thirds majority of the Senate. And despite the trappings, it is not really a legal process but a political one. And politics is not the art of wishful thinking, it is the art of the possible. It doesn't matter how strong a case can be made, it matters whether you can get enough members to vote for conviction.

I am not opposed to impeachment. In fact I would like to see Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, and Rove impeached and convicted. But impeachment without a chance of conviction is an empty gesture. Like a feeble indictment that doesn't secure a conviction, it leaves the prosecutor weakened. But I really think that the Senate is looking around to see if they can garner the votes to convict and remove Gonzales. If they can, I expect impeachment to go ahead.

Looseheadprop has a good writeup over at FDL about impeachment.
— Kitt

Can I take it then that you accept the point of view that impeachment without conviction is an empty gesture?