Digby is the soul of the progressive blogosphere, and of course one of my favorite bloggers. So why isn't she 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...

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.

So Digby believes Bush is a war criminal who should not get immunity from the next President. But what about holding Bush and Cheney accountable now, as the Founding Fathers intended, through impeachment?

In a footnote, Digby writes:

And before you all start the predictable flagellation for my allegedly saying no to impeachment, please read the post I wrote about it again and you'll see that I never said that.

So what exactly did Digby write about impeachment on July 7, 2007, when the Netroots were outraged by Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence? That no president has ever deserved impeachment more than Bush, but there are three political problems standing in the way.

First, I've never seen specific high crimes that could get voted out of the House...

On Friday, Bush admitted he approved torture. Is that specific enough? Absolutely. But could it get "voted out of the House"?

In July 2007, perhaps not, because House Democrats were weak and still trying to work with Bush, even though he repeatedly attacked them.

But it's April 2008, and a few things have changed. Thanks to Iraq and the economy, Bush's approval rating is tied with Nixon at 28%, and his 67% disapproval rating is a world record. And when House Democrats stood firm against telecom immunity, Bush's repeated attacks caused Democrats absolutely no harm.

So House Democrats are no longer operating out of fear of the White House. The question is whether any Democrat besides Dennis Kucinich has the cojones to actually fight the White House.

I have no doubt that an Article of Impeachment on torture would have the support of most House Democrats. But there's a gap between "most" and 218, the simple majority needed to pass an Article of Impeachment. To get 218 votes, the Netroots would have to mobilize with the same passion and intensity as we did on FISA, when we surprised everyone by getting 222 votes.

Given the visceral reaction to the torture story, I am certain we can mobilize even more strongly. And we aren't starting from scratch: on March 11, the House voted 225-188 against torture, including 5 Republicans (Paul, Bartlett, Gilchrest, Smith, and Johnson). Only three Democrats voted against the bill, and two - Dennis Kucinich and Maxine Waters - voted no because it didn't go far enough, and they would certainly lead the fight to impeach Bush and Cheney for torture. That leaves the infamous Jim Marshall as the only Democrat who supports torture.

Second, time is not on our side.

Last July, Digby imagined the need for lengthy investigations before impeachment could begin. Eight months later, we've had all the investigations we need. And as of Friday, we even have a confession!

House Democrats could impeach Bush in an hour, simply by putting Articles of Impeachment on the floor for a vote. Dennis Kucinich did exactly that last November 6, expecting his motion to be killed through tabling. But Republicans decided to make trouble for Pelosi by not tabling it, and it ended up being referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it is in a permanent vegetative state.

Finally, there is the most important and indisputable fact that Bush and Cheney will never be convicted in the Senate.

Unlike #1 and #2, this has not changed. But is it a good enough reason to avoid impeachment? No.

First, passage of Articles of Impeachment in the House would terrify the White House. Richard Nixon resigned after the House Judiciary Committee - not even the full House - adopted Articles of Impeachment.

Second, if Bush were put on trial in the Senate for torture, would John McCain defend him? It would be a lose-lose - he would either lose Bush's 28% dead-enders, or he would lose the 20% of voters in the middle who consider McCain a reasonable moderate. Either way, our Democratic nominee would win in a landslide.

So that's the heart of the impeachment debate before us. Morally, there's no question Bush must be impeached for approving torture. Politically, the objections that were plausible last July no longer are.

Digby, will you reconsider?

Update 1: As luck would have it, McCain flip-flopped on torture once again in front of Villanova students in a chat with Chris Matthews:

We should never, ever torture anyone who is in the custody of the United States of America because (applause) because the struggle we're in with radical Islamic fundamentalism which is going to be with us for decades, and that is that it's a military,diplomatic, intelligence and ideological struggle. If we're not any better than our enemies, then doesn't it make it harder for young people to choose.

Of course McCain actually voted on 2/14/08 to let the CIA torture prisoners in U.S. custody by using techniques prohibited by the Army Field Manual, including waterboarding.

And that was a flip-flop from his emphatic support for the Army Field Manual on 11/28/07

I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn’t think they need to do anything else. My friends, this is what America is all about.

So going back to the debate with Digby: would McCain defend Bush and torture or not? Either way he loses, so let's force him to choose by sending Articles of Impeachment to the Senate!