wouldn't have been enough votes for any successful impeachment anyways. So why bother? Pelosi did the right thing by saying it was "off the table." Meanwhile, even though she's said this, Kucinich somehow got a bill in there on the impeachment of Cheney. If it was off the table, how did this happen? If Pelosi says anything else on the matter before it's actually a realistic possibility, all attention focuses to her wanting to be President. If you take out Bush and Cheney, she is the President of the United States by default. Thus, she doesn't need to say anything more than she already did. That it's off the table. Meanwhile, others have been conducting investigations and interviews of the corrupt administration, all which is moving us closer to a realistic possibility of impeachment. What would be better? To hear Pelosi say what most of us already know is the right hting to do? Or to let her remain silent while her colleagues that agree with us do their jobs in making it harder and harder for people who currently would vote "no" have to vote "yes?" There's nothing to be gained by clinging onto a final term unpopular President outside of maintaining some party strength. But, once it reaches a point where your votes in support of him may cost you your position in the future, you jump ship. I'd rather see the tactics pushing towards that scenario continue uninterrupted than seeing Pelosi come out and say what I