Broder writes:

But at some point, if he is at all a man of honor, George W. Bush would feel bound to say: That was my policy. I was the president. If you want to indict anyone for it, indict me.

Is that where we want to go? I don't think so.

What the hell? George Bush breaks the law, subverts the constitution, and we don't want him indicted for it? Sez you, Mr. Broder.

For god's sake, being President gives the man immunity FOR EVER?

And don't tell me that people wouldn't like to take a poke at the guy who, along with torture, played such an instrumental role in destroying the economy.

Bush tortured people to justify the Iraq war, the cost of which we'll be paying off for generations!

There's plenty of non-elites saying screw the deluge, apres Bush, le indictment please.

But no worries, Mr. Broder:

There's little evidence that George W. Bush is a man of honor.

I find the "partnership" argument simply silly.

We have overwhelming and credible evidence that our leaders were criminals. The constitution was designed exactly to remedy this situation, to place checks on executive power. While modern political parties did not exist when the constitution was drafted, there can be little doubt that the founders knew of the role of political factions, and sought not to prevent such factionalism, but to to provide a legal arena to air such disputes in such a way that the constitutional system itself is not undermined. The founders clearly intended that leaders who went beyond the constitution, as did Bush and company in any number of ways, including torture, should in fact be checked by those with opposed (and not necessarily noble) interests. The cure for unconstitutional activity is constitutional opposition.

Broder asks us to agree that Bush is above the law. He argues that only if Bush has "honor" could Bush be indicted. But the facts of the case, and mechanisms of the constitution, clearly contradict Broder. Bush may have honor, he may be a funloving overgrown frat boy, but in the eyes of the law he is simply a criminal. Or not. Let a judge or jury of his peers decide. His choice.

By arguing against "partisanship," Broder opposes the rule of the American constitution itself, and against years of American history.

That said, I believe, as do many other Americans, that the "partisanship" of this particular case is not Democrat vs. Republican. I for one am not really either. The partisans here are instead those who believe the rule of law for everyone, and those, like Broder and Bush and those in the complicit Democratic leadership, who do not.

That I found the "partisanship" argument silly.

Here we have officials who lied to get us into war, tortured to find reasons for that war, tortured children, subverted the legal process, illegally wire-tapped Americans, illegally seized Americans, illegally denied coounsel, stole and destroyed documents, contravened treaties...

I think Broder needs to describe exactly what types of actions would in fact create criminal liability among high officials, if the Bush administrations crimes are too petty to count.

Alkaline, I thought I was clear that n=1 in my sample size, but, in case not, there it is. As Glenn likes to say, burro calado passa por sabio. I just wish I knew what that meant.

Mona, I agree and, like almost everyone, I'd rather deal with people who smoke too much than people who drink too much any day of the week. It's the puke and violence factor. All drugs should be rated plus or minus the social effects of 12 shots of tequila in a frat boy's stomach.

Let's have an objective discussion. Maybe Frum is holding the missing link between Sadam and Obama. Who knows? How can we know what Frum knows until we strap him down to a table and drown him 186 times? Or threaten his family? Or slam his head against a wall? Or lock him in stress positions during the next debate? Or lock him in a tiny room with ear-splitting music, naked and hung from his wrists for weeks at a time?

Why isn't Frum talking about what he knows about the next terrorist attack? Is an attack imminent? Why is he silent?

Should we take a poll to see how many American would like conservative TV talking heads renditioned to prisons in Syria?

How many Americans would like to poke a hockey stick up the arses of Canadian-born pundits telling us how to run our country?

Can other countries "defend" themselves by waterboarding? Can the Italians waterboard Roma? Can the Russians waterboard Chechens? Can Palestinians waterboard Israelis, Mr. Frum?

Should the Iranians, Cubans, Taliban, North Koreans, etc be allowed to waterboard Americans with impunity, so long as waterboarding is effective in defending their counteries?

Maybe we can't know unless Frum tells us. And how can we really know what Frum is hiding unless we ship him off to a black site and let the dogs loose?

Just asking, y'know, in an objective, rational, friendly fashion.

We need an award like the Righteous Among Nations, you know, the Yad Veshem program in Israel for the heroes who opposed the Holocaust. Some very brave people, soldiers and FBI agents and the like, opposed the torture and refused to participate. They should be recognized. Currently our President is praising the torturers, calling them courageous, and there needs to be some effort to correct his mistaken notions, and reward the real heroes during the Torture Regime.