I don't think the Democrats are going to impeach President Bush anytime soon.That might be seen as too radical a move after sitting on the political sidelines for so long.That does not mean the Democrats will give Bush what he wants for the next two years. It's more likely that the Democrats -- who now control both houses of Congress -- will obstruct the Bush agenda and rip out the rug from under him, rendering him totally ineffective until the next President is sworn in. That's fine by me. Maybe a slow death is better than a quickie.

Bipartisanship can be a bad thing when the dominant political party throws a bone to corrupt politicians and foregoes serious oversight. If Congress decides to go all the way, though, here's a list of things for the impeachment shitlist. All ya gotta do is cruise through some of the liberal/leftist websites to read up on the many crimes of the Bush administration. Here's one showing that Bush "authoriz[ed] the kidnapping, disappearing, and perhaps even the torturing of detainees" in violation of "the Geneva Conventions and the Treaty Against Torture." And if they could impeach President Clinton over lies about oral sex, what about George W's lies? Or the absolute disaster that we have created in Iraq? Or would we rather shop?

Why do all the arguments on impeachment begin and end with lawbreaking? Why aren't horrendous policy choices part of the equation? I guess bad policies and programs are not "high crimes and misdemeanors" under the Constitution. But I think a good prosecutor could find a way to show that the endless stream of violence and horror in Iraq is somehow the product of the President's high crimes. Or at least a misdemeanor. Typical story on the fire that Bush set in the Middle East follows:

BAGHDAD, Iraq Nov 24, 2006 (AP)— Militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive as Iraqi soldiers stood by, and seven Sunni mosques came under attack as Shiites took revenge for the slaughter of at least 215 people in the Sadr City slum.

A U.S. helicopter opened fire into the Shiite enclave after militiamen fired on it from the ground, residents said. There were no immediate reports of casualties.

With the government trying to avert a civil war, two simultaneous bombings in Tal Afar, in northern Iraq, killed at least 23 people. On Thursday, Sunni-Arab insurgents unleashed bombings and mortar attacks in Sadr City, the deadliest assault since the U.S.-led invasion.

Members of the Mahdi Army militia burned four mosques and several homes while killing 12 other Sunni residents in the once-mixed Hurriyah neighborhood until American forces arrived, said police Capt. Jamil Hussein. Gunmen loyal to radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr began taking over the neighborhood this summer and a majority of its Sunni residents already had fled.

The gunmen attacked the four mosques with rocket-propelled grenades, machine guns and automatic rifles. Residents said the militiamen prevented them from entering the burned buildings to remove the dead, and they and Hussein said Shiite-dominated police and Iraqi military stood idly by.

Later Friday, militiamen raided al-Samarraie Sunni mosque in the el-Amel district and killed two guards, police 1st. Lt. Maitham Abdul-Razaq said. Two other Sunni mosques in west Baghad also were attacked, police said.

Somebody really should pay for this.