The principle behind impeachment

Apparently there are those on the left who oppose the idea of impeaching Bush because of the line of succession - the assessment that it would be even worse to have Cheney or Hastert in the White House. David Swanson refutes that argument in his article entitled, "Can Cheney save Bush's presidency?" Here's the main point:

Let's step outside our role of amateur pundits for a moment and try on the role of citizens, just for laughs. As citizens of a democracy, it is our sacred duty to demand the impeachment of a president and vice president who have committed high crimes - and there can be no higher crime than taking a nation to war aggressively and on the basis of lies. The targeting of civilians, use of depleted uranium, use of white phosphorous, ghosting of prisoners, use of torture, illegal spying, and so forth - that's all icing atop the strongest case for impeachment conceivable. If we do not impeach for this, we can never impeach - or impeachment must be reserved for sex.

If anything can provide immunity from impeachment here, it must not be the presence of criminal underlings in the line of succession. What a precedent! Imagine if we'd made Nixon a dictator because we didn't like Agnew! Where does this thinking come from? Our duty here is to save international law and our constitution and to put a holy fear of popular revolt into every future executive who contemplates lying us into a new war. It matters less who sits in the Oval Office than whether he or she is terrified of being the next person investigated and impeached.

As a practical matter, of course, there is no way imaginable to conduct a serious investigation of Bush or Cheney without incriminating the other. It cannot be done.

But to even fantasize about it is to get two steps ahead of ourselves and try to talk ourselves out of action that it is our duty to take. An investigation - a real one, with subpoena power - is a step in the right direction and also an end in itself. It serves an educational purpose. As does a debate on censure. And censure - far from blocking impeachment - focuses attention on impeachable offenses.

It amazes me that this is even debatable. The president deliberately broke the law - egregiously violating the Constitution he is sworn to protect and defend. What has happened to our country that we could consider not impeaching him?