The real issue here is not whether George W. Bush and others in his administration committed crimes and/or violated the US constitution. Evidence of both abounds. The real issue is the vitality, or lack thereof, of our mulit-branch government. The founders knew only too well the dangers of a "unitary executive," allowed to do whatever he/she decides to do without oversight or outside restraint. That's what happened during this entire administration -- including the short period Democrats have been in control. Now the question is; has a precedent been set? We will only know if Bush et al go unpunished after leaving office, because it's clear Congress is not about to do a thing about it.

Very good sub title....could be improved by deleting the word Liberal. Presumes conservatives are lacking in a desire to uphold the rule of law. Much good questioning...little or no answering ...gets tangled in attempting to appoint...? justice, without stating jurisprudence, or settled law. His questions are good and need answering. Interviews of media figures and congressional folk on all levels would help. These questions, like the 911 debacle, are still up in the air, falling in the category of cynisism making for the average citizen/voter.

I realize that the piece is a snippet of Bugliosi's book (which looks like it's worth reading) but, it certainly drops off cold and hard. The way that the piece reads, it seems that the author/editor is guilty of the same "Bush lied, and people died - what's for dinner, Fred?" journalism that Bugliosi is complaining about up front in his piece.

This article asks why George Bush has not been impeached for taking the USA to war based on false information and why the media does not pursue this question. The lack of media discussion is a good question. However the article by itself is not well balanced in my view. It is an introduction to a book that might paint a larger picture but it does not show how the whole administration bears responsibility for their collective decision and that this decision was subsequently supported by congress.

finally!! bravo the alternet..insight, asking questions, provoking thought, leading the intellect! bravo bravo bravo! we finally have one of the obvious questions being asked..the next ones might go further and proscute the military for not accepting surrender..before the invasion! hey oil might still be 30 bucks a abarrel!..bravo the alternet, bravo vincent!! keep your eyes onthis guy!

A story which loses its way and becomes confusing and whiney. Impeach Bush? How about the rest of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse--Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld? And why impeach them only for Iraq? How about spying on Americans? Violating the Constitution? Their incompetent governance? Stealing of America for Special Interests? Lying about every major action the administration has taken? Although the list is long enough to reach Cleveland, the real issue is that Congress--indeed most Americans--lack the courage and will to impeach. In retrospect, the House's attempt to impeach Clinton is now seen for what is was--an attempt to get rid of a president. For anyone who can actually think, ultra conservatism and its false doctrine ... More »

And while you're at it, let's execute Rove and Cheney for treason, outing a covert agent while we're at war!