I had been against impeachment because I thought it would be too divisive, and I thought it would be a bad political move on the part of Democrats.

But I just listened to 2 constitutional scholars on Bill Moyer's Journal who advocated it for persuasive reasons. Enough for me to reopen the issue.

The reason they found it imperative was the precedents set by Bush and co. Would you like it if Hillary Clinton or Mitt Rommey could open anyone's emails without a court order?
What if another country did what we do? What if Putin grabbed one of our citizens in a foreign country, whisked him out of the country on some secret flight, and deposited him in one of their satellites for questioning? Not even Nixon tried to shield Howard Dean from Congressional committees investigating Watergate. But Bush is claiming it for his people. They argued he was claiming freedom from Congressional oversight.

They argued that Pelosi is not doing her job for political reasons. Afraid of the political backlash of impeachment, she is abandoning congressional oversight and the traditional checks and balances that has kept this country free of power hungry Executives for it's history. That both houses are filled with politicians more interested in getting re-elected than in defending the Constitution. Also, that the press rolled over for Bush, and abandoned their usual role as watchdog.

Lastly, they said the people are ahead of the Congress on this. That 47%(?) favor the impeachment of Bush, and 54% or 56% favor the impeachment of Chenney. That they understand the torture of prisoners is wrong, and the Congress isn't doing what the people what it to do.

I think that the torture being done is illegal, and it bothers me that prisoners are held indefinitely without benefit of counsel. Now I'm beginning to think I'm just lazy not to standing up to defend the Constitution. Because I am proud of the Constitution that we have, and the wisdom of the men who made it.
TG