(continuation of previous comment)

Dems are clearly--in my mind at least--threading a very narrow needle hole here. Go too fast and then run into walls. Go too slow and nothing happens. I think that they realize that they have to move slowly, patiently and methodically--and most of all very, very smartly--if they've to have any chance of holding the administration accountable and stripping it of its illegitimate powers. Which is what I think that they've been doing. Clearly, it hasn't been fast or aggressive enough for most people on the left--myself included. But realistically, I can't see how they could have moved this much faster without running into these walls. By moving more slowly, I think that they're hoping to find ways to slide by, over, under or through them (that needle analogy again), and slowly, methodically, systematically, close in on he administration. Like a good prosecuter going after a wily and dangerous criminal organization.

This, is, I'll admit, a risky strategy--in addition to being a very unsatisfying one till now, of course. And I harbor no illusion that it might fail. But I genuinely do not see any other, more aggressive strategy, that is both more likely to succeed, and less likely to provoke even worse developments (such as, say, bringing a passionate but weak contempt case to the courts which by being struck down or dismissed would essentially legalize the administration's policies).

I view it sort of like the Allied position before D-Day and the successes in North Africa, when the Axis powers still held (or appeared to hold) the upper hand. In desperation, Churchill authorized the Dieppe raid, which turned out to be a disaster. Calling for impeachment NOW, when there couldn't possibly be enough votes to convict and which would give the GOP massive PR and rally the base material, would be, in my opinion, another Dieppe. The Allies learned after Dieppe that if they wanted to take down the Axis powers, then they had to move more slowly and methodically, even if it meant that they had to continue "losing" the war for a while longer--and did, resulting in the hugely successful landings in North Africa, Italy and Normandy, which turned the tide for good.

I think that Dems are slowly organizing their own "D-Day" and forgoing another Dieppe. It's not unfolding fast enough for all of us, but it was never able to, given all the constraints I've listed. And I honestly don't see any other way to do this. This is NOT waiting around for '08, but rather doing what they can do NOW, while at the same time also working towards '08. The two are not mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary, done right they can actually be mutually reinforcing.

I may be quite wrong. This is just my own assessment. If you or others disagrees, feel free to point out where I'm wrong and what you think Dems should be doing instead, that has a better chance of actually succeeding. Because ultimately, anything that doesn't succeed isn't just as bad as doing nothing, but quite possibly worse.

Or are people still too busy laughing, crying or pondering to be ready to post? ;-)

Actually, although I was specifically asking Glenn for his opinion, I did ask for your opinion, and everyone else's, as anyone who posts here implicitely does. And I thought that it was a thoughtful and good one.

And I actually think that congress has effectively told Bush "enough", and if it's not doing so repeatedly it's because belaboring a point tends to weaken it. I think that they're focusing more on taking slow and deliberate steps that will hopefully eventually hold him accountable, than on issuing too many Gingrichean proclamations that the media will then devote countless news cycles to (like Hillary's bust line today) or on spectacular action. If anything can put an end to Bush's atrocities, only slow and stead is likely to, IMO. People can and will disagree, of course.

I never said that there isn't sufficent evidence to support impeachment. Rather, what I've been saying is that one, from a purely technical point of view they have not yet gathered sufficient evidence to put together a solid enough case from a constitutional point of view (i.e. the way that any good prosecuter builds a solid case even though they KNOW that the perp did it), and two, the votes to convict are not there right now, nor are likely to be if they try to impeach NOW, so it's not only a futile effort NOW, but quite possibly dangerous for a number of reasons.

So I think that congress needs to get on persuing normal oversight, and if it leads to a point where impeachment appears doable, go for it. And I'm not convinced that it will continue to be futile down the line, as more evidence is gathered, the administration continues to stonewall in ever more extraordinary, unconstitutional and desperate manner, and Repubs get increasingly nervous about '08. But we're just not there yet. And people forget that from the initial pre-impeachment hearings to resignation, Watergate took 18 months to unfold in congress.

Interesting number, 18. Also means "life" in Hebrew. Maybe it can be made to mean "life" for our democracy as well. One can always hope.

Modern day "Republicans" have shown themselves to be very different animals; I don't think any amount of mendacity will make them turn on Bush.

True. But I suspect that it won't be mendacity that makes at least some of them turn on Bush, but rather fear, panic and the survival instinct. The only question is when, how many, and how much. Because we're going to need a lot more than pretty speeches on the floor of the senate and plaintive expressions of concern to get anything meaningful done here.