In response to my last post, Terri asked,

Where are the people moving forward with impeachment and resignation cries? It's like the Will Rogers' quote (or maybe Mark Twain?) "Everybody's always talking about the weather, but nobody ever does anything about it."

I've been following the Bush/Cheney impeachment movement for a while, and the answer seems to be that while those who believe it is warranted seemed more convinced than ever, there's no support for an impeachment fight among the people who would have to lead the charge. Even some of the administration's most vocal critics say its actions do not rise to the level of "treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors" required under the US Constitution.

Right now, the only impeachment bill before the House of Representatives is H Res 333, Rep. Dennis Kucinich's (D-OH) April 24 resolution against Vice President Cheney. [You can read the evidence that Kucinich says supports his bill.] The bill is currently being held in committee.

As of June 28, the resolution had nine cosponsors, although four more may sign on when Congress reconvenes July 10.

The new impeachment supporters include Rep. Jim Mc Dermott (D-Wash), who called for Cheney's resignation in a June 28 floor speech. Mc Dermott's call was prompted by the Vice President's claim that his office did not have to turn over information to an office that monitors the handling of classified information by the executive branch because the VP serves as president pro tempore of the Senate, and is therefore not part of the executive branch.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) declared impeachment “off the table” when the Democrats won their slim Congressional majority in 2006. House Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers (D-MI) declared himself against impeachment late last month, even though he sponsored a 2005 resolution calling for an inquiry into whether the President had committed impeachable offenses.

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-ILL) reportedly told a questioner at a constituent breakfast that impeachment is the wrong remedy for the Administration's "loose ethical standards, secrecy and incompetence." He added that an impeachment fight would be a "non-stop circus" that would distract Congress from attending to the people's business.

Editorial opinion writers seem to agree. USA Today accepts the argument that while Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence deserves criticism, is no worse than what other presidents have done, including Bill Clinton. Writing in the New York Times, pundit Michael Kinsley argues that as much as he dislikes the President, many of the attacks being leveled against him for his actions in the Libby case are hypocritical. Newark Star-Ledger columnist John Farmer says an impeachment drive would backfire against the Democrats by making martyrs out a weakened President and Vice President.

While the impeachment effort seems far from being a real threat to the administration, other efforts to curtail presidential power may prove more nettlesome. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced a bill this week that would limit a president’s use of signing statements -- a declaration about the way a particular law will be interpreted by the executive branch. GW Bush has incited controversy for his use of signing statements to set aside laws or provisions of laws with which he disagrees. Specter is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary committee.

Meanwhile, Conyers announced plans to hearings on the Libby commutation, as well as pardons issued at the close of the Clinton administration, inciting derision from White House Press Secretary Tony Snow. “Well, fine, knock himself out,” Snow reportedly said.

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) announced that he will introduce a resolution to censure the President for the Libby commutation. Swopa at Firedoglake says censure may be ”the right tool to cut through the clutter” of arguments over impeachment.

Some bloggers have been quick to reject the impeachment movement. When Kucinich’s resolutions were introduced in April, Michelle at Reformed Chicks Blabbing

called Kucinich’s effort is a ridiculous waste of time,” adding, “We live in interesting times when a member of Congress would attempt to impeach the Vice-President during a time of war.” Perhaps it is worth noting that former Pres. Richard Nixon was forced from office during wartime as well, although the Indochina conflict was nearing its conclusion at that time.

Ddjango, a former Kucinich supporter, declared himself dubious about this effort because the Ohio congressman was not a co-sponsor of Rep. John Conyers’ (D-MI) resolution calling for an investigation into whether Pres. Bush committed impeachable offenses. That resolution has 39 co-sponsors.

In press reports, Kucinich said he went after Cheney because impeaching Bush first would have made Cheney president.

Kathy at Liberty Street was glad to see this development, even if it fails: “[I]t feels good that at least one member of Congress is willing to stand up for what's morally and legally required.” Similarly, Katherine at EditorMom is shouted, “Woo-hoo to the max!”

The latest moves by the Bush administration has deepened some bloggers’ conviction that impeachment is necessary. Here’s Christy at DennisisRight.com

Across the nation, support for impeaching Cheney (and Bush) is strong. Five minutes of reading the news proves that. They’ve run the most secretive government imaginable. Not only have they broken numerous laws, they’ve made a mockery of our Constitution.

Stacy Parker argued in the Huffington Post that impeachment is a moral imperative:

If we say no to impeachment because we're pragmatists, or because we're somehow "purer," what does that tell the world, or our children, about how we respect the law? About how we respect American ideals?

Perhaps that is what motivated Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) to < a href= http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-impeach5jul05,0,3983892.story?coll=la-home-center>show her support

for a new storefront campaign headquarters for the impeachment movement in Los Angeles Wednesday. Waters is the only member of the House Judiciary committee to express support for impeachment. Any impeachment resolution or inquiry would have to go through that committee.
Still, even some who are sympathetic to the arguments for impeachment worry about the consequences of failure. From the ,a href=http://www.mahablog.com/2007/07/03/impeachment-and-independence/>Mahablog:

As much as we all want to see some people impeached, the odds that two-thirds of the Senate would vote to remove Bush and Cheney from office are, well, remote. About 17 Republicans would have to cross the aisle and vote to remove. And I fear that if we go through the impeachment process, and the creatures are not convicted, it would amount to exoneration. It would send a message that whatever articles are brought do not rise to the level of being criminal or a threat to the Constitution.

But I wouldn’t rule it out. If it could be done, it would go a long way toward restoring faith in America. And I would do it even if the vote to convict doesn’t happen until the day before the 2009 inauguration. The rule of law and the integrity of the Constitution must be protected.

While the conversation definitely has shifted from the days when only former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and a few other so-called left-wing extremists even uttered the word, those advocating impeachment still have an uphill climb to convince even the toughest Bush critics that this is the best way forward.