Here is today's pathetic page 2 Pentagon Post article about impeachment by cub reporter Ben Pershing. The article almost completely ignores the substance of Kucinich's 35 Articles, and instead is infused with Pershing's attitude towards Kucinich, which can be described in one word: loser. 

Kucinich Forces Vote On Bush's Impeachment 

Having failed in efforts to impeach Vice President Cheney, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) escalated his battle against the administration this week by introducing 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush, using a parliamentary maneuver that will probably force a vote today.

Kucinich's impeachment measure accuses Bush of taking the country to war in Iraq under false pretenses; he introduced it as a "privileged resolution," which requires the House to take it up within two legislative days. Any lawmaker may offer a privileged resolution, but it is usually done only by party leaders.

Kucinich, upon introducing his articles of impeachment Monday evening, insisted on reading the resolution into the Congressional Record, a process that took nearly five hours. He finished reading it late yesterday after the close of legislative business.

As they have previously, Democratic leaders staunchly oppose Kucinich's impeachment effort. They expect to table the resolution by referring it to the Judiciary Committee, where they expect it to die.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) suggested yesterday that engaging in a lengthy debate over impeaching Bush in the waning days of his administration is not a productive use of the House's time.

Kucinich tried a similar maneuver last November, bringing an impeachment measure against Cheney to the floor as a privileged resolution. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Of course the Washington Post gained fame for its coverage of the impeachment of Richard Nixon. So let's compare the introduction of Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon. Here is a summary compiled by Barbara Ellis in her excellent white paper on the Nixon Flooding Plan:

On June 12, 1973, Rep. Pete Stark - who is still in Congress! - introduced the first resolution for an impeachment investigation, H.Res. 431. On July 31, Rep. Father Drinan introduced the first actual Article of Impeachment, H.Res. 513. But Drinan's resolution had 0 co-sponsors. The first Article of Impeachment to get a co-sponsor was introduced on October 24, 1973 by Bella Abzug (H.Res. 650), which ultimately had 16 co-sponsors.

To measure the intellectual death of the Washington Post, here is Jules Witcover's page 1 article from October 21, 1973, three days before Abzug's resolution was introduced. 

Pressure for Impeachment Mounting

Demands for the impeachment of President Nixon mounted swiftly last night in the wake of his firing of Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of Attorney General Elliott L. Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus.

Within the White House, sources reported an immediate reaction of "shock" among presidential aides to Mr. Nixon's action and an expectation that it was now inevitable that Congress would move to impeach him.

Members of the House and Senate -- from both parties -- expressed dismay at the President's moves. One member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerome R. Waldie (D-Calif.), said flatly that he will introduce an impeachment resolution when the House reconvenes, probably Tuesday. So did Rep. Ogden R. Reid (D-N.Y.), a one-time Republican.

Waldie charged that Mr. Nixon "in one wild move has removed the few remaining men of demonstrable integrity in the administration."

The action, he said, leaves no doubt that release of the Watergate tapes in Mr. Nixon's possession "would prove the President's complicity in the crime of obstructing justice and would make him impeachable."

The President would rather withhold the tapes and make the matter of impeachment a test of "the guts of the members of Congress, which he considers a better bet," Waldie said.

Three of the most prestigious Democrats in the Senate -- Stuart Symington of Missouri, Edmund S. Muskie of Maine and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts -- all indicated their belief that Mr. Nixon's actions made impeachment proceedings more likely.

Muskie said the President's actions "are of such gravity and consequence to our form of government" that the House should consider impeachment proceedings. "What the President has done," he said, "threatens to destroy our system of law. It smacks of dictatorship. Unless Congress responds in the only way provided in the Constitution for resisting such a usurpation of authority, we endanger our country's future."

Kennedy called the firing of Cox "a reckless act of desperation by a President who is afraid of the Supreme Court, who has no respect for law and no regard for men of conscience.

"It is obvious," he said, "that Mr. Nixon is bent on maintaining the Watergate cover-up at any cost. The burden is now on Congress and the courts to nullify this historic insult to the rule of law and to the nation's system of justice."

Symington charged that the President "has now violated his solemn obligation to the Senate" on Richardson's independence, and said "there is no question that whatever the chances for impeachment were before, they have been materially increased."

Republicans also saw impeachment down the road for Mr. Nixon. Rep. John B. Anderson (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Republican Conference, said "the President has precipitated a constitutional crisis" and he predicted impeachment resolutions would be introduced this week.

Sen. Edward Brooke (R-Mass.) said, "This act on the part of the President, under the circumstances, is sufficient evidence which the House of Representatives should consider to begin impeachment proceedings."

Rep. John N. Erlenhorn (R-Ill.), a moderate, said he, too, expected impeachment proceedings and predicted that the vote for removing Mr. Nixon "will be significant," but he would not say whether he thought it would succeed. He called the President "ill-advised" for his action yesterday, and for withholding the tapes.

Sen. Mark O. Hatfield (R-Ore.) in a telephone interview from Oregon, said, "It seems to me the President is almost intent on committing political hara-kiri."

While saying he is still hopeful that "we can resolve this short of impeachment," Hatfield said the President's action "invites far more serious consideration" to taking that step than before.

Hatfield also said the President's actions would seem to put "in jeopardy" his nomination of Rep. Gerald R. Ford to be Vice President, succeeding the resigned Spiro T. Agnew.

The Oregon Republican noted that several Democrats had indicated they wanted to withhold action on Ford's nomination pending release of the White House tapes by Mr. Nixon. I wouldn't be surprised to see Jerry Ford held hostage," he said.

Ford was one of the few voices heard last night in support of Mr. Nixon's actions. "The President had no other choice, after Cox -- who was, after all, a subordinate -- refused to accept the compromise solution to the tapes issue," he said.

Agreeing with Ford was Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.). "I don't know what other choice the President had" he said. "It's a question of who's the President -- Nixon or Cox." Dole said whether impeachment proceedings start depends on what each man says and the reaction on Capitol Hill to the President's proposed compromise on the tapes, in which he would have provided a summary of the contents, and let Sen. John Stennis (D-Miss.) listen to the tapes for verification.

One House member, Rep. Donald M. Fraser (D-Minn.), national chairman of Americans for Democratic Action, said the President left the House "no choice but to proceed with impeachment," and he proposed that the House hire Cox as its special counsel to explore grounds to impeach Mr. Nixon.

Cox himself in his statement of the President's action against him implied that the next proper step was impeachment. "Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people," he said.

Until last night, Congress had appeared to be extremely reluctant to even consider the impeachment step seriously. But there had been growing signals that if the President eventually bucked the judiciary branch on the issue of the White House tapes, it could provide the catalyst for action.

In discharging Cox and closing down his special Watergate investigation, the President appears to have averted that direct confrontation. But in so doing, he appears at the same time to have assured another, more direct one with Congress on the ultimate question: whether Watergate and its attendant machinations will drive him from the White House.

Of course the "underlying crime" of Watergate was a "second-rate burglary" of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel by White House operatives.

The famous Watergate investigation by WaPo's Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein tried to figure out who the White House - authorized the break-in. And Congress tried to go beyond the journalistic efforts of "WoodStein" by using its subpoena power to examine evidence of Nixon's personal involvement - including the famous Oval Office tapes whose existence was dramatically revealed in Congressional testimony by Alexander Butterworth.

Intellectually, it's impossible to compare the "second-rate burglary" with the innumerable High Crimes of the Bush Administration, only 35 of which are documented in Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment.

The closest analogy is the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, but the seriousness of that crime eclipses the seriousness of the "second-rate burglary."

And Nixon did not participate in the decision to break in to the Watergate, while Bush probably did participate in the decision to expose Valerie Plame, according to the extraordinary investigative blogging of "emptywheel" (a.k.a. Marcy Wheeler), who deserves a Pulitzer infinitely more than "WoodStein." 

According to Marcy, the first evidence of Bush's involvement was the note Scooter Libby wrote to himself on June 9, 2003, one month before Libby, Rove, and their gang quietly outed Plame.

Libby told the Grand Jury he couldn't remember how he learned P (President Bush) was interested in Nicholas Kristof's NY Times op ed about an unnamed former ambassador's trip to Niger, which was published three days earlier.

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

There's a pretty strong clue here - the mention of the "vice president's office," which set off alarm bells there - and probably reached P himself, although Libby wouldn't admit it to the Grand Jury. (Libby, as we know, was convicted of lying to that Grand Jury.) 

And here is the most recent "dot" Marcy connected: 

Scottie McC's denial--which is not one, not by a long shot--only addresses the method of the leak, the fact that Scooter and Shooter leaked via the old A1 cut-out using Judy Judy Judy. After raising the question of whether or not Bush had authorized the content that Valerie was covert ... Scottie McC said nothing. 

In Watergate terminology, I'd call that a "non-denial non-denial." 

So why is the Pentagon Post so contemptuous of the first serious effort to impeach George Bush for the outing of Valerie Plame - and 34 other indisputable High Crimes?

Because the Post, like the rest of the Corporate Media, has become fatally corrupt - and intellectually dead.