Many recent postings in the political blogosphere have encouraged readers to put the heat on their congressional representatives to impeach George W. Bush.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been trashed by some for saying that impeachment is not being considered.  I agree with Ms. Pelosi.  Given the present circumstances, impeachment would have more negative than positive effects.  Look at the practical realities:

1. Mr. Bush only has a half-year left to go on his presidency anyway.
2. Impeachment is in effect an indictment by the House.  To have any meaning at all, it would have to be followed by a trial in the Senate. 
3. As in the case of the impeachment of Bill Clinton a decade ago, barring some extraordinary new evidence, the Senate will never vote to convict, which would require a two thirds majority, including at least one third of Senate Republicans. 
4. The time required for both the impeachment itself and the subsequent trial would last longer than the scheduled remainder of the Bush presidency.
5. In the event that the Senate does convict Mr. Bush (which it won't), the only penalty provided by the Constitution is removal from office.  He would be gone by then anyway, and even if he wasn't, do we want "President Cheney?" 

Given the fact - or at least the widely held perception - that the impeachment process would be more a political stunt than a useful exercise of an important but rare constitutional process, I think it is likely that voters would punish the Democrats in November for such a huge waste of time and other resources.  This means that impeachment at this time would not just be useless; it would be counter-productive.  Those who are so hot to get on with impeaching Mr. Bush, if they get their way, would be handing a huge advantage to Senator McCain, and to Republicans in general seeking congressional offices.   I am sure that is not the intention, but it is the effect. 

My personal belief is that Mr. Bush deserves impeachment and conviction.  I do not dispute that point.  So does Mr. Cheney.  To be practical about it, for the reasons I tried to articulate above, it does not matter whether they deserve it or not.    I am concerned that some members of Congress, such as Dennis Kucinich, are more interested in grandstanding about this or that cause than they are in serving the interests of the American people.  If the Republicans are successful in portraying Mr. Kucinich as the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, the Democrats are in huge trouble.  The 2008 election, which should be very successful for Democrats, will go for the Republicans instead.  Use your head, rather than your heart, and forget about impeachment. 

Let Mr. Bush complete his second term of office as president.  Then, if there is a basis for prosecuting him for crimes that carry potentially meaningful penalties, go for it.  Is there a case for bringing him to trial for war crimes?  How about his use of the justice department for prosecutions (or is that "persecutions"?) based on blatantly partisan political motives?  Maybe selling no-bid government contracts in exchange for political contributions?  To me, all these things are possible, but I do not know whether sufficient evidence exists to warrant criminal prosecution.  The point is that pursuing impeachment now is worse than useless, but criminal prosecutions after he is out of office should at least be studied as a possibility.  That is when the penalties for conviction really count.