You're right that there will never be the votes to impeach.  And the mere specter of impeachment without removal will not make Bush resign; the Clinton impeachment took away any stigma of impeachment for at least the next generation.

But it is not the job of the netroots to push only for practical solutions that are achievable today. If you think pushing for impeachment would be a disaster for the netroots - ok.  But, the netroots need to push for some kind of action that the Dems could take to create consequences for Bush for his bad acts.   And I don't mean defunding the war - I don't see that as creating consequences for bad acts - I see ending the war as the right thing to do.  

What they have done is illegal. They prove again and again that they do not care about law or order. That they hold themselves above the law.

Start impeachment proceedings now. String it out. Start with an investigation of Cheney. Just one committee, one charge. Then move forward.

Seriously, though.  I respect your opinion that an impeachment proceeding is likely to conclude without the removal of the President from office.

But I would argue that the outcome of the proceeding isn't the only point that matters.  And, I would point out that your opinion about the outcome is just that - an opinion, not a fact.

You're asserting that any attempt by the Democratic majority in Congress to bring about impeachment proceedings would harm the Democrats' chances in the 2008 election.  I have to ask you, though: did the 1998 impeachment proceedings against Clinton harm the Republicans in the 2000 election?  If so, can you quantify the harm?  If not, can you say what distinguishes the present case?

You're also saying that an impeachment proceeding would take valuable time away from working to end the Iraq war.  Again I have to disagree: key components of an impeachment proceeding are Bush's lies and manipulations and illegal behavior culminating in the deaths of thousands of Americans and tens (likely hundreds) of thousands of Iraqis.

Indeed, I see an impeachment proceeding as bringing to light the many crimes of the Bush administration, chief among them the President's decision to conduct a war of aggression against a soverign nation that was no threat to the United States.

If impeachment is off the table, so is Democracy

if we are not willing to take the first steps in that direction there is no chance of preserving what is left of our democracy.  If we begin that process, by starting hearings and investigations pursuant to the possibility that impeachable offenses have occurred, one never knows where they might wind up.    When the impeachment hearings started with Nixon no one expected that a 2/3 vote of the Senate would be possible.  In the end, Nixon resigned because as more and more of his misdeed were exposed, the number of Senators willing to support him was dangerously close to single digits.

If impeachment is off the table, so is Democracy

After the House vote, Pelosi resigns, and Dems install a Republican Speaker not closely alighned with the Busheviks, with Pelosi to be re-elected Speaker upon the temporary Speaker's ascension to the Presidency.

He commited no crime when he commuted Libby's sentence.  It is his right as called for in the constitution.

Get over it.  

To call for impeachement now because he did something that he has the power to do is silly and childish.

Mommy Mommy I don't like the rules of the game so I'm taking my ball and going home!

1. 72% are against a pardon - most of those aren't going to be in favor or commutation. How can you say such a large tide of public opposition translates into "It simply will never happen"? At some point they'll be forced to recognize the threat to their own electoral prospects.

2. NOT doing it is likely to have negative political ramifications for Democrats in 2008.

3. Iraq - What's the point? Can't you see the "compromise" already shaping up? Drawdown in exchange for permanent bases and decades of occupation.

Impeachment would preclude discussion of of all other issues

I do think though that the threat of it can help in forcing a withdrawal from Iraq.

Impeachment COULD work if they Democrats initiated a campaign to prepare the country for it. It remains the only option outside of a complete breakdown of the social order leading to civil war.  This is where we are now, with the lawless momentum of the administration utterly unchecked -- no attempt to do so even having been MADE -- and the neocons are free to begin the Final Act.

We're going down the whirlpool, spiraling tighter and tighter into chaos. There isn't any time to wait for Democrats to take over, and even if there were, the prospect gives me no joy. Bush and Cheney must be removed from office and tried for treason. How does one do that?

1. It is my understanding that executive privilege will not be able to be raised as a defense in the impeachment proceeding;

2. With their ability to stonewall curtailed by impeachment proceedings it is quite possible that hard evidence of high treason will be obtained. Its quite possible that faced with overwhelming evidence of criminal activity that enough Republicans will flip ala Watergate;

3. I have come to the conclusion that Congress must impeach and the failure to do so would contribute to the shredding of our Constitution. After all  "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

...Gerald R. Ford defined the criteria as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

And, since the deciderer has decided to escalate his preemptive war in Iraq, and Congress cannot get a handle on removing us from this "bush war," then Articles will begin the process of allowing the American people to have a voice in determining how to shut down this illegal war.

And, you must remember, those 14 permanent bases in Iraq are not going anywhere and neither is the US military.  The US embassy in Iraq sits on 104 acreas...the largest embassy in the world.

Cinemas and restaurants and shopping malls with palm trees and expansive lawns...in the desert...on 104 acres...the largest embassy in the world.

1000 officials with supporting staff is what Crocker wants and another $50 million MORE for improvements. The largest embassy in the world in a destitute small nation like Iraq.  Why?

Do i think the President is guilty of impeachable offenses?  Absolutely.  But I find it difficult to see what would be gained by long drawn-out (likely into 2009, I would guess) impeachment proceedings that would serve to simultaneously help unify the fractured GOP support and distract the Democrats from getting us out of Iraq (and preventing escalation into Iran).  

The Democrats were swept into office in 2006 largely on their promises to effect change with regard to Iraq.  If the Dems fail to deliver on this (say, by allowing themselves to be distracted by impeachment proceedings), many voters would feel betrayed (with some justification, I would say).

The adminstration's actions have proven, time and time again, that they simply do not care what the law says - they will ignore it, and we now know that if actually caught and convicted, they'll use the unfettered constitutional clemency power to avoid paying any serious consequences for their action.

Criminal cases, if they result in convictions at all, will find pardons or clemencies from the White House.  Plus, any criminal cases brought now - including for refusing to answer congressional subpoenas - will simply run out the clock on the administration, as they stall, stonewall, and appeal at every step.  Even if the conservative judiciary rules against the White House, I believe the administration simply will not obey any command to produce incriminating documents to Congress or the courts.  Even if the US Supreme Court orders it, I do not think they will obey it.

That leaves Congress with only one option that the executive branch cannot frustrate - impeachment.  Congress can impeach and convict on its own motion at any time, and it's the only check on executive power that does not require executive branch cooperation.  Even "contempt of Congress" requires the Justice Department to prosecute, and as we saw in the Reagan administration, sometimes they just won't do it.  They definitely will not if Alberto Gonzales remains the US Attorney General.

Even if Iraq is your overriding concern, I think you're being naive to believe that any effort from Congress to defund the war will stop them from waging it.  When Bush says that defunding the war would "endanger the troops," he is very clearly signaling that those troops are going to stay in Iraq whether or not the evil libruls let them have ammunition or not.  Just as the constitutional clemency power is unlimited, so is the President's power as commander-in-chief: he can leave the troops in Iraq even if Congress forbids spending a single cent on their mission.  All it would mean is more troop deaths, something he could blame on Democrats.

Congress can't force the President to order troops anywhere if he refuses to accept budgetary limitations, notwithstanding that he'd probably just "shuffle the budget around" to get what he wants anyway.  All Congress can do is impeach him if he refuses to obey the law - except you say that shouldn't even be considered because it can't work.

So, in essence, you're saying that Democrats should just accept that there's no way to hold this administration accountable while it's still in office.  Impeachment may not work, but it's Congress's only option that doesn't require the executive branch's assent, something you know the branch will never give.  If you want to eliminate this final option from the Congressional menu of powers, what do you propose they do?