"In fact, it was more than a success: it was the Woodstock of the Impeach Generation"

Well, 0.2% of Woodstock anyway, at least according to his numbers.

I suspect the tin-foil hats are, as you have suggested, a bit of self-depracating humor.

But why tag these folks as the "lunatic fringe," Eric? Right-wingy characterizations of the two coasts as some sort of alien bizarroland and that the real, normal America lies in the heartland is so OLD -- enough already! Besides, there are a fairly substantial number of Americans from all around the country who thinks that impeachment is just what Bush deserves:

A June 27 through 29, 2005 Zogby International poll found that 42% of voters believed that if President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment, and 50% did not.

A 2005 Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,000 adults found 32% of Americans believed that President George W. Bush should be impeached and removed from office. 58% took the opposite view.

An October 29 through November 2, 2005 Zogby International poll found that by a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans wanted Congress to impeach President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq.

According to a 2006 Zogby International poll, By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval.

A poll by Newsweek on 19 October 2006 revealed that 51% of respondents believed that the impeachment of George W. Bush should be a priority.

Former Counsel to the President John Dean had this to say Bush and impeachment in a 2003 FindLaw article: "To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

I'd suggest that impeachment talk now (with only two years to go in his presidency and a Democratic majority in Congress) is simply a warning shot across the WH bow with regards to Iran. If Bush/Cheney dare attempt an attack, watch those calls for impeachment fly through the roof and THIS Congress WILL act.

Ya, at least when Clinton lied no one died!

Actually, I don't think it's wrong to tag Berkleyites as on the lunatic fringe. Support for impeachment isn't looney; but what is looney is thinking that spelling out the word on a beach will help move the country towards your policy preference.

What's also telling, though, is that to see the lunatic fringe of the left, you need some photographer to seek them out in California. But to see the lunatic fringe of the right, all you have to do is watch the Vice President on television. The left's fringe is relegated to, well, the fringe, whereas the right's still runs the Republican party.

"If Bush/Cheney dare attempt an attack, watch those calls for impeachment fly through the roof and THIS Congress WILL act"

Since an impeachment at this point would not be run by a lame duck session of Congress trying to make a futile statement, the process could easily take the rest of the term. While that would be great for most of us, as it would distract Congress from all sorts of other mischief, it would be a waste of time in the end. Also, given what happened to Clinton's poll numbers during his impeachment (if you've forgotten, they went way up), and the fact that the president's poll numbers tend to spike, at least initially, during military action, I'm not sure this would be a good idea for Democrats going into the 08 elections. Impeachment is a fringe idea, and I doubt many members of Congress take it seriously.

I agree with J (and the Dem leasership, btw) that at this point in time, impeachment is an absolute waste of time, but I disagree that impeachment is a fringe idea. Not unless you are willing to characterize approximately 50% of the country as "fringe."

Would Congress take impeachment seriously in the event of a pre-emptive attack on Iran based on the kind of bogus intel the Bush team has recently been puking up? I don't know. But now Bush will have to factor in that threat (and the threat that up to 5 generals will resign) should he take the Iran-attack gamble. It's yet another speedbump on the Bush Road to Armageddon.

Why one should impeach Bush while Cheney is still veep is entirely beyond me.

Nonetheless, the comparisons to Clinton are probably not very useful. Clinton was a basically popular president, being impeached for charges that the nation didn't generally think were very meaningful. Impeaching Bush over launching a new war in Iran would be taking aim at a deeply disliked president, at a time when the country pretty much wants us out of the region already.

If there was a sense of real urgency, I don't see why Congress couldn't in principle impeach in a very short time frame. But it'd all be a basically a waste of time unless 17 Republican senators were going to go along with it!

Clinton was a basically popular president, being impeached for charges that the nation didn't generally think were very meaningful. Impeaching Bush over launching a new war in Iran would be taking aim at a deeply disliked president...

It's unquestionable that the ramifications of military action are far more serious than a President perjuring himself and obstructing justice to cover up an affair. However, you can't impeach a President for making unpopular (or even unwise) decisions. Clinton was impeached for an actual crime--lying under oath. To have grounds to impeach Bush, there would have to be evidence that he actually ordered the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses--something many people claim, but with little or no evidence.

No, the only choice Congress would have to stop an invasion of Iran would be to withhold funding. While there seems to be insufficient will on the part of the Dems to do that vis-a-vis Iraq, I think it would be there for Iran. (Unless, of course, Iran is caught red-handed building a bomb, or something like that.)

I was really looking at the politics of it, Eric, but you're right that some sort of legitimate charge would be required. But there's plenty to choose from -- just off the top of my head, the administration's numerous deceits in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, or the outing of Valerie Plame, or the illegal and unconstitutional detention & torture of Jose Padilla. Remember, Congress gets to decide what counts as "high crimes and misdemeanors"; and they get to decide for themselves whether the charges have been proved to their satisfaction. (Though, again, that they need a super-majority is extremely relevant to that issue.) Most relevantly to this scenario, though, would be the charge that the (ex hypothesi) Bush-initiated war in Iran was an unconstitutional abrogation of Congress' right to declare wars.

In short: if the politics are right for it, there's oodles there for Congress to draw on.

Most relevantly to this scenario, though, would be the charge that the (ex hypothesi) Bush-initiated war in Iran was an unconstitutional abrogation of Congress' right to declare wars.

Good point. Amid all the speculation about Iran, I forgot that without Congress' authorization, we most likely would not be in Iraq today. And it's extremely unlikely that the Democrat-led congress would authorize military action against Iran (again, in the absence of major provocation).

Yeah, that's why there was this recent silliness about how the bombs in Iraq just _somehow_ must be coming from the Iranian government -- the idea was to set up cover for the future claim that attacking Iran was (er, will have been? is there a future-perfect-hypothetical tense?) _part_ of the war in Iraq, and thus _already_ Congressionally authorized. The administration, for the reasons you suggest, sure doesn't want to have to go to this Congress for authorization of anything!

er, will have been? is there a future-perfect-hypothetical tense?

Obviously, you are in need of Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's Time Traveller's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations!

Speaking of the 2002 authorization, I believe that the President was already put on notice by a top Senate Democrat (why do I think it was Biden) that any pre-emptive attacks on Iran would not be covered by it. Grounds for impeachment? Hence the Iranian bombs in Iraq silliness mentioned above by philosopher? (Hey, didn't we provide weapons/missiles to Afghanistani jihadists in their fight to throw out the Russians? I thought that's how proxy wars have been traditionally fought for the last 50+ years-- no fair changing the rules midstream!)

Anyway, I am still of the opinion that this is all a very scary charade to get the Iranians to the negotiating table. But then I wonder why we refuse to speak with them, or even allow the Israelis to negotiate with Syria. All this Straussian obfuscation is too exhausting...

That should have read jihadists in Afghanistan, NOT "Afghanistani jihadists." --Yikes.