[T]here's no evidence that George Bush has done anything wrong for purely venal purposes. He approved torture of prisoners and violated FISA because he genuinely thought it was necessary for national security reasons after 9/11 — and unfortunately, lots of people agreed with him at the time and continue to agree with him today. I too wish there were a broader consensus that Bush has acted illegally and ought to be held accountable, but the fact that he hasn't met Nixon's fate doesn't really say all that much about how tolerant we are of executive lawbreaking. Ideological disputes are simply a different kettle of fish than personal vendettas.

But Nixon's defenders always claimed that Tricky Dick was doing what he had to do in order to save the Republic from the hippies and the anarchists and the pot-smoking slackers wearing Che Guevara shirts. Nixon believed that since the nation was obviously best served with Richard Nixon in office, committing crimes in order to keep Richard Nixon in office was in the best interests of the nation. Now, I don't know if Nixon, in his heart of hearts, believed that but it sounds like the sort of idea he'd get into.

I think the American people are understandably squeamish about impeachment: it's a terrible process to drag the country through, and if the kooks on the political fringes had their way, I suppose we would have impeached every president who ever held office. But I do think that if we are indeed a nation "governed by laws and not men", we must hold law-breaking presidents accountable -- if not while they hold office, then after they leave.