If Not Now, When?

There's a post at Pandagon supporting this article from the Washing Post saying that we shouldn't be trying to impeach Bush. Right, says I, a jolly jest for sure, especially since they both seem so darn serious about the whole. So I read the post, and the article, again, thinking that I must be missing the sarcasm somewhere. Nope, they're really saying that we shouldn't impeach the POTUS. And there's a bucketful of other notables who are apparently saying the same thing. Alright then, riddle me this: When should we impeach a POTUS? Here's a choice quote from the article:

As a general rule, though, bad faith and worse policy should be subject to political remedy, not criminal prosecution, unless there have been crimes so unambiguous and momentous that no political remedy is suitable.

Uhuh, right. The man used his position to violate the sovereignity of another country without cause. How much less ambiguous does it have to get? Give me an act that you would consider a "provable high crime", and then explain to me how its worse that what we already know. As for the political pragmatists who are arguing that the impeachment process would be either a) too distracting or b) infeasible, let me ask you a question as well. Are you so caught up in your party's political future that you can't step back and see the trainwreck that American has become? We can't hold a "no confidence" vote; absent impeachment we've got two more years of this guy. How much more damage can this man do in the time he has left in office? How it this stance any less an abdication of responsibility than the circus we've been shackled with since 2000? If you believe that the powers that be are criminal and are ruining the country isn't is incumbent upon you to do whatever is in your power to fix the issue? Sorry for so many rhetorical questions, but the idea that we should hold on for another two years when there are alternatives is just beyond the pale.