Reply #13: Perhaps

[gratuitous]

But there's another way to read this: A first step. In a couple of days, Pelosi can say, "Earlier this week, I called on the president to reject the legal advice of his Justice Department, seeking to justify torture. He has not done so. I can only conclude that he endorses the use of torture. If he does not, I again ask him to state unequivocally his opposition."

And then, in a couple more days. "It's clear that the president, with the support of his Justice Department, believes he is above the highest laws of our land, and the American traditions of jurisprudence in endorsing torture. I again call on President Bush to state publicly that it is not the policy of his administration to use torture, and to discipline or fire those members of the Justice Department seeking to establish a legal basis for it."

Finally, hit him with the "high crimes and misdemeanors" charge. If you roll that accusation out first, everyone tunes out. "Blatant partisanship," the talking heads will sniff, and dismiss it out of hand. But by going slowly, and building the case day by day, you bring the commentators around to your point of view, and the impeachable offense soon builds its own momentum.

Of course, that presumes that Pelosi actually has a plan, and will follow through. Also, that the presstitutes will actually give a flying fuck about torture officially sanctioned by the U.S. government. So there are two stretches right there. But it could happen.