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.

At this late date, I think your theory of "gathering forces for final assault" is wishful thinking.

With the countless instances of the Bush regime's contemptuous stonewalling and blatant perjuries, what could the Dems possibly need by way of additional evidence or procedural hurdles to both make a case for impeachment wth the public, and to begin impeachment hearings?

Bush has practically dared the Dems to do impeach him and they still seem meekly content to wait him out until 2009.

"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."

I know you didn't ask for my opinion but just in case it means anything, I tend to agree with what you have stated above regarding the unacceptable risk of a premature impeachment. Folks must remember that (contrary to what one of the Anons said earlier in this thread), Nixon was NEVER impeached. In the Nixon case, Congress (which was at the time led by far better politicians and statesmen that we currently have) dug and dug and dug and dug until it finally had enough votes in the Senate to convict (impeachment in the House was a given at just about any time it was introduced). That's when Nixon knew his goose was cooked and it didn't take an actual impeachment to do it. It took patience.

I do, however, believe that Congress should send a clear message to the Administration to the effect that there is a line in the sand past which the Administration must not cross.

I believe that Congress, after an appropriate attempt to play nice, should issue contempt charges against Miers and have her brought before Congress to answer questions. If she refuses to answer legitimate questions, then lock her up and move on to someone else. While I'm sure that the Administration would immediately ask the court to issue injunctive relief on her behalf, there are ways which stalling tactics can be played and those tactics can be played both ways......all the while a matronly old woman is sitting on a plank because Bush told her to ignore Congress. There is an element of risk in doing this but it certainly would bring things to a head and even if the Administration was successful in gaining her immediate release, it would bring the public's attention to the matter(s) at hand at least as well as staging an all-nighter in the Senate.

We shall see.

In the meantime, I'd like to be the first here to predict that Fred Thompson will opt NOT to become a candidate for President.

In what way have these thugs shown any sign that they'll actually relinquish power to a new Administration?

I've said this from 2001 on, but it's start to sound less and less crazy as time goes by.

I don't think they intend to leave power. EVER.

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

(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.