Ironically enough, it was proposed in substantially its current form by the sitting congress during a clinton presidency. It was opposed by.. wait for it.. John Ashcroft.

All of the rest were authorized under the Patriot Act, which was first passed by members of the house & senate. He signed it into law. If you take him out for this, you have to impeach everyone in the house and senate who voted for it as well.

DaveH;223078 wrote:
the last line "Reuters says the new impeachment effort, like the earlier one, is opposed by Democratic leaders and isn't likely to advance." tells it all.

agreed....I don't like Bush, but so far, I haven't seen anything I'd consider an impeachable offense. My personal thought is that somehow Kucinich thinks this is retaliation for the attempt to impeach Clinton.

out there;223071 wrote:
it's not the punishment that counts, it's the precedent that it will set to show future presidents that they can't use the constitution as toilet paper

True.

But, as much as it pains me to say it, I'd rather have him than Cheney - the devil spawn himself.

I see that the dems don't have anything better to do than try and start the process of impeachment for a president who is out of office in less than a year.