The approach of "If the president has done nothing wrong then he has nothing to fear" seems like a good stance. Afterall, isn't that the kind of thing we hear when it comes to warrantless searches these days?

It is foolish to say that under no circumstances will Bush be impeached. I personally believe that Bush deserves to be impeached immediately and tried by the Senate for the crimes of Abu Ghraib and the criminal, warrantless NSA wiretaps and illegal snatching of billions of US phone records. However, prior to a vote for impeachment in the House of Representatives, I would like to see independent investigations into the many questionable activities the Bush Administration has been involved in. It is highly likely -- much more probable than not -- that crimes were committed by many members of the Bush team. The secrecy under which they operate is unnecessary if they are only engaged in lawful activities. Therefore, investigate relentlessly and when impeachment is called for, do not hesitate to impeach this criminal President and his Vice President.

Nancy Pelosi's intentions may be good but what the hell is she thinking?!?!? How can ANY elected representative who has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution publicly state that impeachment will not be an option if a president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors? Bush already thinks he's above the law ... I don't even want to think about what ELSE he might start doing if the Democrats promise not to impeach him! Every Democrat ought to be taking the same stand that Conyers is. He's not promising impeachment -- he's not even threatening impeachment -- he's stating that he's going to do what he was elected to do and let the chips fall where they may. Given Bush's poll numbers I think a lot of Republicans would have a lot more respect for the Democrats in Congress if they all took their cue from Conyers instead of Pelosi!

What's the deal with all the misleading advertisements on Salon lately?

All of these "dontregulate.org" ads seem to suggest that Congress is trying to fundamentally change the way the net works. Bullshit. Congress is trying to prevent Comcast et. al. from fundamentally changing how the net works. Actually, Congress isn't trying to do much of anything. The communication industry has basically convinced most of the Republicans in Congress to do nothing.

This is pretty stupid of Salon. Do you really want Comcast deciding whether or not its subscribers get to read your magazine?

This is the absolutely correct approach to take. However well intentioned, it was absurd of Nancy Pelosi to state categorically that impeachment was off the table. That's like granting amnesty before the prosecution has even investigated a case. If the government is to function in any meaninful way, the Congress must provide oversight. If that oversight turns up evidence that would merit impeachment, then it would be a dereliction of duty to not move it forward in the manner envisioned by the Founders. What kind of a message does it send to the citizens of this country and the world that "high crimes and misdemeanors" would be ignored?

And I applaud Congressman Conyers for being willing to make this explicit. The problem that the Democrats have is that they want to cower in the corner quivering in fear that someone might take offense at one stand or another that they take. He has set forth a reasonable plan for proceeding. If the country is so afraid of this, then they should make that known at the ballot box. At least this way, if the Democrats won control of the Congress and were required by circumstances to move forward on impeachment, no one could accuse them of hiding the ball from the American public.

A liberal co-worker of mine was towing the Nancy Pelosi line, expressing worry that voters would be scared to vote for Democrats if they though Bush could go. She added that, because we thought it was bad to impeach Clinton, we'd be hypocrites to impeach Bush.

How disturbing. What voter ready to switch their congressional vote from Republican to Democrat would need assurance that Dems would not hold Bush accountable? The main reason Republican voters are thinking about voting for Dems in Congress this year is because they are looking for a check on Bush.

The second point is even more disturbing - first because it's politically thick (Bush is at 29% approval; Clinton was in the 70's when he was impeached), second because there's a difference between nookie fibs and war crimes.

Too many liberals/Democrats/non-Repubs/etc. are concerned that politeness be shown to Bush and his supporters. Given that they are using my tax dollars to kill and rig democracies abroad and at home, I, frankly, think it's damn impolite not to be mad as f--ing hell.

Both Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Conyers are saying the same thing, and it mnakes perfect sense:

-- Should there be a majority of Democrats come November, there will not be a kangaroo court followed by a first-class hanging. They are de-fanging, properly, the GOP talking point that Demcorats will be rabid in their immediate, blind pursuit of Mr. Bush's (and presumably, Mr. Cheyny's) head in 2007.

What they are in fact saying is that they will do what the party in power has thus far failed to: investigate - and go wherever the investigation leads. I have far more faith in Democrats following the letter of the law and due process than I do the current crop of neo-cons.

Could Congress - both chambers - show some courage and go ahead and start impeachment procedures for both the President and Vice-President? Please....

A steady parade of Administration Horrors, Blunders and Scandals during the 2 years following their control of the House and/or Senate should allow the Democrats the make bigger strides in the 2008 election. Think long term.

I don't want an impeachment. I want the parade.

Tim- What is so difficult about understanding the distinction between the two? No Democrat is going to run on a platform that they are going to impeach the president. They are going to run under the platform that they are going to take their branch of government back from the White House.