There is a little more to it than just casting impeachment votes. The case has to be presented to Congress (and to the voters) and that takes time.
How long did it take for Clinton?
Better part of a year and a half, start to finish.
And for that matter, what do they care if it runs into '08 campaigning time
You misunderestimate three things. One, the will of the American people for this sort of thing in a time of war. I just don't think the electorate is going to tolerate trumped up charges against Bush and Cheney and this will be even more prevalent if we are hit with another terrorist attack (very likely, IMO). The 'Rats may very well try if they gain control of the House, but I predict a fizzle at best. This is especially true with so many of the Congresscritters voting in favor of the war in Iraq and regime change in Iraq as being the official policy of the United States since 1998.
Two, there simply isn't time for them to impeach a sitting POTUS and Vice POTUS and leave time for campaigning for the '08 election.
And three, you assume that the 'Pubbies will just sit by and allow it to happen. If you've been paying attention the past few years you should have noted how the minority party can delay all things in Congress, even with a very narrow margin of control, i.e. the current Senate. I seriously doubt that the 'Pubbies will just sit by an allow an impeachment to occur.
With all this being said, I still don't believe that the 'Rats will take control of both houses anyway. If they fail to take both houses, the impeachment thingy is dead.
Granted, it takes time. Still, as you said, it was a year and a half, start to finish, with President Clinton. That was zero to sixty. Right now, the American people understand the case. Pres and VP Bush and Cheney, intentionally or negligently, lead the United States into a war under false pretext.
Article II section 4 says that impeachment may take place for Treason, Bribery, and High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Misleading a nation into war probably falls somewhere closer to Treason than Bribery, on the karmic scale. Also, the definition of "high crimes" is basically whatever the House of Representatives say it is. Given that we recently impeached a President for perjury, we'll have to conceed that the charge qualifies as an impeachable offense.
You misunderestimate three things. One, the will of the American people for this sort of thing in a time of war.
Again, bombs were falling during Clinton and Nixon. I wouldn't put too much faith in this angle.
I just don't think the electorate is going to tolerate trumped up charges against Bush and Cheney and this will be even more prevalent if we are hit with another terrorist attack (very likely, IMO).
America will be terrorist attack free if impeachment hearings start. That order will come down from the very top levels of al-Qa'ida. Remember, terrorism isn't about killing people for no reason. It's about using fear to effect political change.
The 'Rats may very well try if they gain control of the House, but I predict a fizzle at best. This is especially true with so many of the Congresscritters voting in favor of the war in Iraq and regime change in Iraq as being the official policy of the United States since 1998.
As the distinguished, French looking Senator pointed out, (and I paraphrase) "We were just voting in such a way as to make the threat of force look viable. You know, to aid negotiations. It was the Executive Branch that actually pulled the trigger. We trusted them. They fooled us."
Two, there simply isn't time for them to impeach a sitting POTUS and Vice POTUS and leave time for campaigning for the '08 election.
I fail to see why they can't do both at the same time. Especially in the latter stages, when the case is basically made, and the impeachment process is basically going through scheduled procedural motions.
And three, you assume that the 'Pubbies will just sit by and allow it to happen.... If they fail to take both houses, the impeachment thingy is dead.
To a great extent, this is all hypothetical, until we see who controls what after the elections. But, they only need to control the House to impeach someone. It's the Senate is required for a removal, and they'd have to win pretty big there for that to work.
I think that many Republicans would roll over and go along with an impeachment, but wouldn't really draw the line until it got to the point of actually removing people from office.