You misunderstand my point, or I am not making it well.

You assert that, as opposed to now, if impeachment were initiated and the administration still chose to defy congress, that somehow a combination of public outrage, political theater and newly invoked congressional powers will prove to be sufficient to take them down, or at least cause them huge political damage.

Well, right now 70% of the public and nearly all Dems want the US to get out of Iraq, and yet the administration continues to say "Yeah, whatever--MAKE ME!". How would this be an IOTA different under impeachment that doesn't result in conviction?

What magical powers will congress suddenly have under impeachment that it doesn't have now, that the administration will actually take any more seriously than it does congress's current powers? It's sort of like saying that under impeachment, congress will double-dare Bush to defy them, and that this will make him back down. Huh?

Impeachment would clearly be more publicized (for a while, at least) than the current hearings and oversight process. But it's not as if they aren't being publicized now. If the public isn't paying attention now, I would suggest that it won't pay attention much more during impeachment. But the public IS paying attention, to a greater extent than it might have a few years ago. After years of Bush fatigue, impeachment would likely only marginally increase public interest, beyond perhaps some brief one or two month period.

You are putting the cart before the horse. Impeachment is what you do when you have a solid enough case to convict, and not when you are still building such a case. And it would give congress ZERO new powers that it either doesn't already have, or that would mean anything in a real-world sense, given the administration's combativeness and the courts' tendency to side with it. All the public outcry in the world (which in any case I contend will not be forthcoming) will not change this, just as it hasn't ended the war or this administration's lawbreaking.

These people are in a fight to the death, and will defy congress until they are put down. Firing off impeachment before a solid enough legal and political case is made will NOT accomplish that. Only methodically building a case using the constitutional and traditional process, under the cover of performing its constitutionally mandated oversight role--which the public has shown its approval for in the polls--is ever likely to accomplish that. They WANT the Dems to go off all half-cocked, and it appears that they are smarter than that. And while Nancy keeps impeachment "off the table", these Dems are slowly and systematically building a legal and political case for it, without which it would be futile and dangerous.

As for OJ getting off, well, I would kindly suggest that his acquittal probably made it easier for future murderers (at least those who can afford high-priced lawyers) and assorted other criminals to get off scot-free. And we're not exactly lacking in examples of rich and powerful people evading justice in recent years. I don't know if there's a connection, but I doubt that any lawyer could reasonably argue that the OJ acquittal made it easier to convict serious criminals.

You want congress to fire off one big cannon called impeachment at fortress Bush, which will just glance off and at most cause moderate but not fatal damage. I want to bore multiple tunnels under it while firing off multiple smaller rounds at it, slowing undermining it and chipping away at its walls, until it's weak enough, and we're strong enough, to finally shoot off that coup de gras (pronounced, btw, without a silent "s", which most people mispronounce in a silly attempt to show that they know French, but I digress) and finish them AND their odious theories and usurpation of absolute power off once and for all.

Kovie, as alluded to earlier, The Speaker of the House has taken impeachment off the table. This information was not gained from assumption. It came from her mouth, and was reported widely in the press. Many are taking her at her word, that she indeed will not consider impeachment and will not allow impeachment. This is nothing less than blatant disregard for the constitution, and was a mistake on her part, based on political considerations being made at the time. As you urge others to THINK, you might include this bit in your own cogitating.

If you take politicians' public statements at face value and this simplemindedly, then I don't know what to say. "Many" might be doing this as well, but it doesn't make them right.

Politics is not about 100% face value honesty. It is about accomplishing the possible. Right now impeachment is not possible (and impeachment means conviction, not a show trial), and Pelosi is smart enough to know that calling for or endorsing it NOW is pointless, stupid and dangerous. And if being cryptic about impeachment is how she decides to deflect potential accusations of partisan witch hunts while at the same time reserving it for future use, so much the smarter. If she really opposed impeachment, she would have made a Shermanesque statement. She did not, and I believe that it was intentional. If you choose to read more into these words than is there, then that's your prerogative, but that doesn't make it so.

You are looking at a chess match and thinking that you're seeing a game of checkers. I would respectfully suggest that you look again. There's a lot more going on here than meets the eye.