Digby is the soul of the progressive blogosphere, and of course one of my favorite bloggers. So why isn't Digby calling for impeachment?
When ABC reported Bush personally approved torture last Friday, Digby's first reaction was shock.

The vice president, national security advisor and members of the president's cabinet sat around the white house "choreographing" the torture and the president approved it. I have to say that even in my most vivid imaginings about this torture scheme it didn't occur to me that the highest levels of the cabinet were personally involved (except Cheney and Rumsfeld, of course) much less that we would reach a point where the president of the United States would shrug his shoulders and say he approved. I assumed they were all vaguely knowledgeable, some more than others, but that they would have done everything in their power to keep their own fingerprints off of it. But no. It sounds as though they were eagerly involved, they all signed off unanimously and thought nothing of it...
[Ashcroft is] certainly right about history not judging this kindly. Neither would a war crimes tribunal. It's hard to imagine that these people can ever feel comfortable travelling around the world again after this; perhaps they believe there's safety in numbers or something. But I don't know how you avoid being held personally responsible for torturing people under these circumstances if you find yourself in a legal proceeding. Simply saying it wasn't "real torture" won't cut it, particularly at this level of detail. They actually went beyond the scope of the Yoo memo...
</p>

Digby believes Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the "Principals" are war criminals. So why shouldn't Congress consider impeaching them immediately?
On Sunday, Digby endorsed the ACLU's call for a Special Prosecutor, calling it "the least we can do." Unfortunately, as Digby well knows, Congress can't appoint a Special Prosecutor, it can only beg Attorney General Michael Mukasey to do so - and Mukasey doesn't believe waterboarding is torture.
On Monday, Digby rejected Obama's potential willingness to immunize Bush II for his(*)crimes, just as Clinton immunized Bush I for Iran-Contra and Iraqgate.

I have long written here as well that I think Clinton's decision to drop the investigations was the worst decision he made and I agree with Parry that putting his agenda before the historical truth was disastrous. Hopefully, Charlie Gibson will ask Senator Clinton about her position on this at the debate on Wednesday.
I also find Obama's answer unsettling. I'm glad he has agreed to have his Attorney General look into the matter. But setting the bar that high --- that they had to "knowingly and consciously" violate the law --- means that there will be no investigation and they will probably be exonerated. The Yoo memos were written for that very reason, after all. (Powell is already using the excuse that they were operating under official DOJ legal findings.)
I don't think it's useful to mention the difference between lawbreaking and "really dumb policies" in the context of torture. Torture is clearly not a dumb policy, it's an illegal and immoral policy. And at this point there's really no doubt that the Principals sat around the white house discussing how to torture prisoners. Regardless of whether they can excuse their behavior because some authoritarian hack in the Justice Department told them it was ok --- it was not ok.
</p>

So Digby believes Bush is a war criminal who should not get immunity from(*)the next President. But what about impeachment?


(Source Link)