Alex, I think you're missing the point. It's not that anyone here doesn't understand that Kucinich's motion is rather unlikely to succeed, or why the mainstream media is ignoring it. But for me, it rankles just a bit to see what's normally a progressive blog, that strives to recognize the crimes of the Bush administration as what they truly are, cavalierly dismiss an attempt to do what we all know should be done, which is bring Bush and his cronies to justice for the horrible amount of death and suffering their policies have created. Kucinich's methods may be unrealistic and even quixotic, but I think he deserves credit for standing virtually alone among his elected peers in speaking truth to power and standing by his principles. At least someone in power has dared to say that Bush was wrong, without waiting for history to make a belated and ineffective judgment. I think that's worth championing, however little support it may get from the mainstream.

as a news story illustrates how thoroughly you have internalized the values of corporate journalism.

The issue isn't whether you believe the articles of impeachment would "go anywhere"--a term you failed to define. The issue is whether the people want them to be acted upon. The issue is not whether you can second guess your corporate sponsors on the matter, however you internalize this. That question is of no interest, and it has no place in the public sphere.

It's axiomatic that you have no interest in furthering discussion on this matter in the public sphere: otherwise you would have provided a link to the articles themselves.

In an attempt to save face, you neglect to mention that you called Kucinich a laughingstock. Apparently 24 Republicans joined the vote to move the articles of impeachment to the House Judiciary Committee. All together, there were 251 laughinstocks to 166 non-laughingstocks.

The Democratic leadership swallowed the pawn ticket for its tiny shriveled gonads in 2000 and hasn't dared to contradict its Republican Masters since. They've give Bush almost everything he wants and never ever filibustered or otherwise stopped a single bill when the Greedy Old Plutocrats demanded one. Now, after a few symbolic rounds they're about to give the "Good German" defense and warrantless wiretapping without cause the force of Law.

The first act of Speaker Pelosi was to say that impeachment was "off the table" because it would get in the way of accomplishing "important things". The Dems' accomplishments since becoming the majority Party have amounted to the thin end of nothing whittled down to a point. If they run away crying at the thought of defending the Constitution or carrying out their legal responsibilities for fear of "appearing weak" how can we ever expect them to lead?

That about says it all, though the other letter writers here are much more eloquent on the point.

That these quite lengthy articles of impeachment will just sit there.

And the Republicans got Bill Clinton impeached on one trumped up charge.

Unbelievable. No wonder the world laughs at us. We are not a democracy, we are a joke.

Not taking "a position on whether Bush deserves to be impeached"? How about people like you grow a pair and start taking a position? Because it's obvious to even the most casual observer that he and Cheney clearly DO DESERVE IT, more than any administration in history.

It's sickening that these criminals are allowed to continue lawlessly abusing our constitution and getting our soldiers killed while people like you and Pelosi and others make puny, irrelevant political excuses for them. With the administration well under 30% approval, who's to say that a thorough airing of their crimes in Watergate-style hearings wouldn't produce the kind of public outrage needed to move impeachment through the senate?

And so what if we lose the goddam vote anyway? Their crimes need to be on the record, and those responsible to try those charges have a duty to put themselves on the record as well.

History will piss on all your graves for letting these bastards escape the dock.

Well, I think so anyway. I've had a bit of bad luck lately, and I'm due. On a more serious note, children who have chronic (or even fatal) diseases deserve to be healthy. People who live by scavenging garbage dumps deserve to have healthy food and good jobs. People unjustly imprisoned deservet to be releases.

In short (I know, too late), what Bush deserves is irrelevant. There are a lot of issues that this Congress should be dealing with, and every minute spent on impeaching Bush is time that that they could be doing something important, like investigating steroid use in professional bowling. Even is they passed an impeachment resolution right now, by the time they got back from summer recess and started proceedings it would be election season and half of Congress would be out campaigning. Then they would be trying to remove from office a President who was going to be out of office in a few months anyway.

If they want to destroy Bush, they can do so by investigating and exposing his lies and cover-ups. Get to it, Kucinich.

First of all, I didn't take a position on whether Bush deserves to be impeached, and I'm not doing so now either.

Fair & Balanced, eh Alex?

For god's sake man, this is a blog not the straight news section of a newspaper, you're allowed and expected to have an opinion.

I believe that the impeachment of Bill Clinton was exactly the reason that Bush will not face impeachment! By going after Clinton on bogus charges, creating a laughable public spectacle and taking it all the way to the Senate (without a conviction), the Republicans effectively neutered the Impeachment clause for this generation and perhaps more to come.

My wife thinks this was precisely the GOP's plan, but I can't quite see them utilizing that kind of foresight. Regardless, they got what Bush/Cheney needed: a citizenry (and a Dem. congress) with no stomach for what came to be seen as a purely political, toothless legislative procedure.

Oh, where oh where are the "strict constructionists" when you need them!!!