The house impeaches, then the senate has to convict. Clinton was impeached, but not convicted, so he got to keep his day job. The interesting question is what happen if Bush or Cheney are convicted, but stay put. Picturing the visuals of the the congressional police ramming down the oval office door while Shrub and Dickie stand guard with their side by sides waiting to start the second Civil War somehow doesn't seem all that far-fetched.

Seriously, if they're convicted, they leave, period (for Paraguay and Dubai, no doubt). And in come poor lamer than lame duck replacements President Jack Kemp and VP Jim Baker for all of 4 months, just before the landslide '08 elections in which Dems increase their majorities to 250 in the house and 57 in the senate, with President Gore and VP Obama winning handily over the pathetic Romney/McCain ticket, as Pat Fitzgerald prepares his criminal indictments of Bush, Cheney, Gonzo, Miers, Rove, Addington, Yoo, Feith, Gannon, Barney and Mrs. Beezley.

:-)

One of the great tragedies of the Bush years is that so few people have ever understood the profound nature and great importance of His Struggle for Living Space for His People and their holy Father's Land and noble Way of Life against the Muslim Peril. Why is he so misunderstood and maligned, when he is just doing what he knows in his heart to be the one true right thing?

Being one myself, I've long felt that one of the great ironies of the cult of Bush is that so may of the strongest and apparently non-ironic admirers of this terribly maligned and misunderstood man are the descendants of European Jews. I simply do not get that.

That is, how they not only do not get (or want to get) the striking parallels between this great and misunderstood and maligned man and His Struggle, and that of a previous "great and misunderstood and maligned man" and His Struggle, who may well have killed off many of their ancestors, but instead appear to enthusiastically, unironically and unquestioningly actually EMBRACE his truly delusional and dangerous worldview.

Someone needs to explain that one to me, because I simply don't get it. Is this some bizarre form of Stockholm Syndrome by proxy?

Shame on you, David Brooks. You are an intellectual liar and thug and deep down you know it, and history will judge and treat you accordingly. Whether due to latent megalomaniacal and sadistic urges, a deep need to be taken seriously by those whom you perversely find to be great people, or some sort of truly perverse hatred of anyone to your and their left (which at this point is some 70% of the country), you have supported, enabled and prostituted yourself for a cause and group of people who are, in my opinion, ideologically and functionally (in nature if not quite yet in scale) identical to the man and people who killed off your own ancestors just over 60 years ago. Which makes it all the more perplexing and perverse to me.

I will never understand that. Not sure I really want to.