This piece by Gary Kamiya asks the musical question, "Why hasn't Bush been impeached?" and gives a number of possible answers. Some, I agree with and some, I don't — but I think all are worth discussing. Oddly enough, Kamiya gives little or no consideration to two reasons that I'd think would be near the top of almost anyone's list. One is the futility of ousting Bush only to wind up with Cheney…or the messiness of getting rid of both to wind up with Nancy Pelosi. Ms. Pelosi may or may not be a good Speaker of the House — I don't know — but she sure doesn't impress most Americans as having the chops, as they say, to be Prez. (And yes, the case can be made that a caretaker Chief Exec would be better than what we have now. But in wartime, that has its dangers and the main point is that the cry for impeachment would be louder if the replacement seemed more like presidential material.)
And the second point is that many of the people who would lead a genuine Bush Impeachment haven't recovered from their disgust at the Clinton attempt. In some cases, the disgust has probably grown greater as they've seen people who screamed "Rule of Law" and made moral condemnations at a fib over sex now look the other way at vastly more serious allegations. That whole episode made the idea of impeaching a president seem sleazy.
Anyway, read Kamiya. See what you think. I think he's on to something with the observations about Bush's war arising from a national yearning for revenge and how some people can't get too mad at him for attacking the wrong enemy. After all, he attacked someone and a lot of Americans either feel complicit or figure someone was better than no one.