Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) has an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post in which he assures us that, should the Democrats take back the House and he become the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he will not immediately begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush. Ed Morrissey thinks Conyers is a liar. He recalls that Conyers held a mock impeachment proceeding in a Capitol Hill basement that was fully reported in the media at the time and that until just a few days ago his website was advocating impeachment.

Conyers is a liar, and not a very good liar at that. He has tried for at least a year to get Democrats to start impeachment proceedings, losing patience to the point where he just held them himself in frustration. As Milbank reported at the time, the only thing Conyers lacked was subpoena power. "'Tis the beginning of our work," he told the Democrats on his ersatz impeachment panel back then. Suddenly faced with accountability in the upcoming elections, Conyers wants to pull wool over the eyes of the electorate by erasing evidence and accusing Republicans of paranoia. Get used to this level of deceit and chutzpah if the Democrats take Congress this fall.

Read the whole thing. Like Morrissey, I believe Conyers and his ilk are just as rabidly for impeachment as the rest of the zealots of the left-wing blogosphere. They believe, sincerely, I think, that Bush was "see-lected, not ee-lected" and that "Bush lied, people died". Only the influence of the sober and rational folks within the Democratic Party will keep these people under wraps in the run-up to the election. Once they take power, "Katie, bar the door".

Check out this piece about two Presidents who saw their approval ratings fall like a stone throughout their second terms, each fighting an unpopular war to help a people achieve freedom.

The Europeans are putting together a package of incentives for the Iranians to give up their nuclear program. Before the package is even finalized, President Ahmadinejad is already rejecting it. Either this guy is absolutely convinced he is perfectly safe from significant economic sanctions or military action, or he wants conflict (I think the latter).

In Pennsylvania, Conservative voters have toppled some of their most important RINOs. I think this is a good indicator about Conservative anger across the electorate. What that portends for November is still hard to say, although I would be worried if I were a "moderate" Republican facing a primary challenge this year.

An end to the Korean War? Perhaps, as the administration weighs the possibility of signing a peace treaty with the North Koreans.

The Senate is moving closer to the House on the issue of immigration reform. While I still would not bet any money on it, there is now a real possibility of reconciling the two versions and crafting an acceptable compromise bill that includes a significant toughening of border control (although not nearly enough) and creates some path to citizenship for some of the illegals already here. Even if they manage to pass some compromise, though, it might not be enough to assuage Conservative anger at the GOP.

In the Palestinian Territories, another sign of impending civil war,

In Iraq, another sign of progress toward the seating of the new government, which would help allay concerns about a civil war.