"Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial."

This survey choice indicates that an impeachment trial is justifiable, but it isn't real clear. Some of the 87% who agreed with this statement must think as I do: there's grounds for a trial, but there are more important things to do first. I'd like to implement some practical resolutions to the quagmire in Iraq and save a few thousand lives before launching into a gigantic feud in Washington.

Let's start the drum beat until Speaker Pelosi has no alternative but to put it back on the table.

They talk as if it would be retribution and they don't want to engage in that.  It's not about them....it's about us and what this administration has done to our country through their criminal acts.

We proved last Tuesday that we are the "deciders".

impeaching the President would be the worst thing the Democrats could do at this point. The last thing we want them to be able to play is the image of an embattled Presidency attacked from all sides by the liberal establishment. Let's get real governmental reform on the ground and put ourselves in a good place for 2008.

...let's be the nice guys.  Then if we should get a democratic president in 2008 they can impeach him/her for botching a joke!

The joke-botcher will never be president.

It's not necessary.  Bush has been marginalized.  Now is the time to step in and prove that we know how to govern.  Instead wasting our time on impeachment hearings.  Let's fix our broken government instead.

other than to gratify us about how right we were about Bush.  BFD!  Impeachment is an all-encompassing, polarizing process which takes a lot of time, energy, and money, and is a distraction from the problems which even as we speak are causing American men and women to be killed.  We have to do what is necessary to unify the country, get us out of this war, put a stop to the borrow and spend policies of the government, restore our civil liberties, and encourage economic fairness for the poor and lower income people among us.  Impeachment is a negative action which could ruin everything we're seeking to accomplish. 

Nancy is playing a game of poker now.  She can't do anything until January.  You want her to show her hand now?  I say let it be for now.  We'll have time when it comes to make sure that government functions correctly and those who break the laws are prosecuted.

Webb did a very smart thing.  He's going to give the poor suffering workers at WalMart a raise.  Don't you think that will help our political chances?  It sure will help our people, no doubt.

Forget it because the real thing is to fix the power abuses and the war profiteering.

If they do this it will tear the nation apart and more importantly, fill the docket to deal with this versus investigate the war profiteering, no bid contracts, abuses of power in terms of fixing them and so on.

While I certainly would like to see them hang high, in terms of the real goal of restoring this Democracy, ending corruption and returning accountability I think it will actually enable the system itself to go on because all of the energy will be about "getting these guys".

As they would like nothing more than the New Team 110th Dem Congress bog our country down with impeachment hearings while we're at "war". Hello GOP Victory 2008 !

Interactive polls are fun, but in this case, and the sorry wording of the choices, it's a lose-lose result.

Guys, we have the power now, let's not waste it :)

You guys are forgetting it takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict the President of the crimes for which he was impeached, which is pretty clearly an impossible task. This Democratic majority was elected on the basis that they would do something, and indicting a President with no chance of getting a conviction doesn't strike me as the best way of doing that.

The interactive polls is pretty worthless. 

You have a self-selecting sample, biased questioning, and as pointed out by another poster its possible for someone to vote multiple times. 

Plus voters don't even have to live in the U.S. to complete the poll. 

I'd be curious to see what the same results showed if the Interactive poll was conducted on Fox News's website.

Nobody's seriously talking about impeachment.  In fact, in the past two days, Democratic leaders from the House and Senate have met with President Bush to discuss ways they can work together for the good of our country.  In my opinion, that's exactly what they SHOULD be doing in this difficult time for America.

In general, the Congress - as a coequal branch of government - should be offering vigorous support for the President when his ideas are good ones, and vigorous opposition to the President when his ideas are bad ones.  Of course, Congress should be watching closely for any waste, fraud, abuse or corruption from the Administration.  If it finds any, it should act promptly to deal with that.  The bottom line is that we need a clean, competent and effective government with checks and balances as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.  Unfortunately, we haven't had that the past 6 years, but today is a new day and I am optimistic for our country's future.

I agree that it would be an embattled presidency and a marginalized one. I would be in favor of censure because Bush is the one that protects us from global harm.  At one of the last meetings Josh said "let's get this mission accomplished and I mean that in a non George Bush way." We all laughed. Which brings me to my point. I mean Bush protects us from harm not in a radical right way, but in a president way.  How could we talk to Iran or North Korea if the one doing the talkin was ten seconds away from being convicted on abuses of power? A censure would do the same thing while stating we also need to address issues of the American People, because it would be over quickly.  Also, my problem with impeachment is if Bush is truely impeached, accused by the House, convicted by the Senate, then Dick Cheney would be next in line.  When Donald Rumsfeld resigned and Bush said at his meeting with Democratic House leaders in the same room with Cheney, "the three of us" that means the bigger lame duck is Dick Cheney. By impeaching Bush you would be saying, could you please lead us Mr. Cheney. With excluding Cheney when he said "the three of us," that to me says the vice-presidency is going back to playing second fiddle to the one that really has the power, and that's enough retribution for me.

....our newly elected dems should not go into next year with impeachment at the top of the agenda. They should be ready to work in a non-partisan way to get things done.  On the other hand, there will be investigations.  What if the investigations uncover serious crimes?  Are they going to say....oh well... let's just let it go because it would be too messy to impeach.  Right now we have Germany ready to prosecute Rumsfeld.  Are we going to let other countries do our dirty work because the dems don't have the stomach for it?

I am perfectly happy to not talk impeachment now and be patient and positive. 

When the general public finds out about how much of the tax payers money was stolen by Halliburton, it will be out of our hands.