"Electing a new president will not change anyhting, as the executive will still have near dictatorial powers. The likelihood of Obama giving up such powers would be remote."

Do you have any evidence to support that allegation or do you wish that we pre-suppose what Obama will do absent any evidence whatsoever?

"Bush and Cheney need to be impeached. The rule-of-law needs to be re-established so that future leaders understand that they too must adhere to those basic standards."

You are possibly correct in stating that Bush and Cheney need to be impeached but now is not the correct time to start those involved proceedings. The reasoning behind the fact that none were commenced when the Democrats took over Congress is debatable but it is not debatable that such proceedings, absent a sustainable majority in both the House and Senate, would have been a colosal waste of time. Quite simply, the votes weren't there 1 and a half years ago and they aren't there now. The Framers of our Constitution made successful impeachment efforts difficult to attain for a reason. Had they been easy, Clinton would have been convicted in the Senate and would have been shown the door.

"Without impeachment, the Congress, the Constitution, and the will of the people are dead."

The Constitution is only dead if We The People determine that it is dead. The Republicans did not take over both houses of Congress, the Administration, and the Supreme Court overnight. They worked at it long and hard and even then, they've been stymied at the brink of success. We cannot hope to overturn decades of their efforts overnight and hoping for a panacea, such as an instant impeachment, are the thoughts of a fool.

"Support Kucinich and his 35 articles of impeachment! There is nothing more important than to prosecute those who have committed so many crimes."

Prosecution is still an available option once the Democrats have solidified their control of the Congress. I would suggest that our efforts would be better directed to seeing that they do so, rather than running around shooting off at the mouth about doing something which cannot be done.

"Clinton was impeached for perjury. It is pretty plain that Bush is also a perjurer. Pelosi needs to put impeachment on the table, or get out of the way so that some patriot can make it happen. The world is waiting. Do they have to start another illegal war with Iran for the people to act?"

If you have evidence that Bush has violated the laws against perjury, please send them to the Justice Department, with a copy to whatever public venue(s) you desire. Lying to the American people is not perjury, nor is lying to the press.

Bush is probably guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors but perjury doesn't seem to be one of them. Of course, you might have a transcript of his sworn testimony to the Plame Grand Jury which indicates perjury took place, but absent that, I certainly haven't seen any perjury.

So, Mr. Concern Troll, put up your evidence or zip your pie hole.

By the way, why don't you start your own Blog. Then you'll be able to dictate the topics of discussion. This particular thread is about how the NYT is promoting falsehoods relative to the current debate about FISA. It's not about Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment.

BTW, you forgot to include your usual rant about how Bush blew up the WTC. Are you well?

"I utterly despise you."

Pass the Ambien! I am certainly going to lose sleep over this development.

You guys must either live in a dream world or you're batshit crazy. If The House started impeachment hearings today, there would not be enough time to even get a quorum in the Judicial Committee, much less pass Articles of Impeachment in the whole House and then persuade 2/3rds of the Senate to convict. We have a hard enough time getting a simple majority to pass easy, non-political, stuff nevermind getting 2/3rds to pass something like impeachment - especially in an election year.

I'd like to see Bush run out of town on a rail as much as you, if not more, but I'm being realistic. If you guys want to pound your dicks on the table and prove how tough you are, then have at it. Why not stick them into the fire while you're at it and really get everyone's attention? In the meantime, why are you wasting our time reading your nonsense about impeachment being the only solution?

I'd much rather waste my time trying to accomplish something that can be acomplished than waste my time blowharding about something that can't.

"You haven't made a convincing arguement against him committing treason, though."

I haven't tried.

My argument is based upon practicality, not legality.