Because NO CRIME has been committed by the VP. Recall that it was in a civilian trial that Bill Clinton committed perjury. YES I had a problem with the $70 million spent...BUT when they DID discover a crime (because frankly Clinton screwed up), there WAS a crime which could have been impeached.

You, of course, do not know that NO CRIME has been committed by the VP, but would like to pretend that you do. This highlights in sharp relief the substance of your argument. Fact is, there is A LOT to suggest that the VP did commit crimes. You would dearly like not to investigate those. You may have had a problem with $70 million spent investigating Clinton (although I doubt it), you had no problem with the result of that investigation. In other words, when you spent $70 million investigating a democratic president and discovering an impeachable offense, the end has justified the means. Not so with a republican.

SO...even IF [CHENEY] did [LIE], which there is NO evidence showing he knowingly did so, it would NOT be a CRIME.

There is a lot of evidence that Cheney lied many times, all to the media. Every single statement of certainty ("we know Saddam has chemical weapons") was a lie. They did not know. They suspected. These were lies under the strictest definition, and nobody is seriously arguing this. The question is, did he tell any of those lies to Congress. That warrants an investigation.

A month before Bob Novak published Valerie Plame’s name and disclosed that she worked at the CIA in a department that monitored weapons of mass destruction, the gossipy Richard Armitage at the State Department already knew all about her.

How this amounts to Plame being outed by the Clinton Admin is still a mystery. Are you ready to retract that statement now, or is your whole position totally allergic to any sort of truth?

I read that blog you linked to to prove your "point." Isn't it curious that the Libby trial failed to uncover the fact that Plame was outed by her own husband, but a right-wing blog discovered it with no problem? (I expect you, like your president, are completely incurious about this.)

SO...you believe a conspiracy exists to keep the President and the Vice President from being impeached and that ALL of Capitol Hill is in on in...Yep...that MUST be it, otherwise they would be impeaching them right now, right?

Essentially, yes. But by "conspiracy," I don't mean to suggest that Pelosi and Cheney are holding meetings in caves and discussing their joint offense on American democracy. Rather, the Dems and Repubs are conspiring in their own circles. However, their intentions are both driven by the exact same force.

Consider this: is it a conspiracy that people have sex in order to propagate the species? Or is it simply a reflection of the facts of life? Whatever you would call this arrangement, I would apply that to what is happening in Congress regarding the refusal to impeach Cheney.

And of course paulpsd7 would much rather concentrate on this rather than address the issues of the day...because this is MUCH more important.

You need to get out more, and you'll discover people who, by gum, can walk and chew gum at the same time. In this case, Congress has not stopped focusing on other issues. However, to a majority of Americans, this IS a crucial issue. Again, you had no problem with this kind of activity when it was Clinton under the microscope.

Pelosi needs to pay some lip service to the voters that made her house majority leader, before she inevitably crumbles to Bush's wishes. This seems like a rerun. Is this happening because of the writers strike?

I'm sure if Nancy Pelosi could snap her fingers and withdraw the troops, she would.

Um, maybe. I'm in Santa Cruz and lived in SF for years, so I feel I have some insight into SF "liberal" politicians. For these politicians, there is one primary driving motivation: to retain their current level of wealth and privilege. Once that requirement is satisfied, they then look to support certain projects. If one of those projects conflicts with Priority #1, then it doesn't happen. Ending the war is one of those. Impeaching Bush/Cheney is another. Unfortunately, those are the two most crucial issues facing Congress, and the Dems have largely abdicated their responsibility. (My own rep, Sam Farr, is a glowing exception to this.)

If Pelosi were truly serious about ending the war, rather than just wanting to appear serious, there is a lot more she could do. As has been pointed out in the past, they could simply send Bush the same bill over and over again until the funds run out. But, see, that would threaten the whole wealth and privilege thing. So, if a few hundred GIs and thousands of Iraqis need to die so that Pelosi can fly around in luxury and throw cocktail parties for her rich friends, so be it.

From all the democratic capitulations over the past 10 months, from green-lighting torture, to telecom amnesty, to Muckasey's inevitable approval (none of these capitulations being necessary), I have reluctantly concluded that there is no meaningful opposition to the GOP and that the republic is doomed. Now it's all over but the shouting. Sorry to be a downer.