Once again Bush went before the Washington Press Corpse relying on his earpiece to answer many questions. (He gets better with practice so it's less conspicuous, but it's still perfectly obvious every time he shakes his head sideways and mutters "No" - that's when he's stalling as he listens for his answer.)

Most of the press conference (and media coverage) was about Iraq. But the two questions about accountability offered powerful ammunition for the inevitable impeachment battle ahead.

The first came from Peter Baker:

Q When you first ran for President, sir, you talked about the importance of accountability. We learned from Bob Woodward's recent book that Secretary Card, on two occasions, suggested that you replace Secretary Rumsfeld, and both times you said, no. Given that the war in Iraq is not going as well as you want, and given that you're not satisfied as you just told us today, why hasn't anybody been held accountable? Should somebody be held accountable?

After defending Rumsfeld, Bush jumped directly into the line of fire:

the ultimate accountability, Peter, rests with me. That's the ultimate -- you're asking about accountability, that's -- rests right here. It's what the 2004 campaign was about. If people want to -- if people are unhappy about it, look right to the President. 

That's exactly right. Donald Rumsfeld didn't make the final decisions - George Bush did, along with Dick Cheney. Democrats will be wasting their time if they focus on Rumsfeld, because whoever replaces him will report to the same bosses. It's the bosses who must be held accountable - and Bush himself says so.

The very last question came from Richard Wolf of Newsweek (a favorite of Keith Olbermann)

Q Back in 2000, you campaigned around the country saying you wanted to usher in the responsibility era, to end the days when people said, if it feels good, do it, and if you've got a problem, blame somebody else.

THE RESIDENT: Right.

Q Yet over the last several months, we've seen many members of your own party in Congress embroiled in one scandal or another and all too ready to blame somebody else, whether prosecutors, or Democrats, or even the media. So I'm wondering, why do you think it is so many people in your own party have failed to live up to the standards of the responsibility era?

THE RESIDENT: If any person in any party fails to live up to high standards, they ought to be held to account, Richard. It's important for there to be trust in the halls of Congress and in the White House, and throughout government. People got to trust elected leaders in order for democracy to work to its fullest extent. And I fully expect people to be held to account if there's wrongdoing, just like I expect corporate executives to be held to account for wrongdoing; just like I expect people throughout our society to be held to account for wrongdoing.

People do have to take responsibility for the decisions they make in life. I take responsibility for the decisions I make. I also understand that those of us in positions of responsibility have the duty to bring honor to the offices we hold. People don't have to agree with somebody's opinion, there's all kinds of opinions here. But in order to make this country work, and to make democracy succeed, there's got to be high standards, and people must be held to account to achieve those standards.

"If there's wrongdoing"? Whole forests have been chopped down with books about wrongdoing by Bush and his entire administration. Henry Waxman and House Reform Democrats have documented his corruption in exhaustive detail. John Conyers and House Judiciary Committee Democrats have documented his Constitutional crimes in exhaustive detail.

If America has any standards whatsoever - let alone high standards - Bush "must be held to account to achieve those standards."

And there's only one way to hold Bush accountable under the Constitution - IMPEACHMENT.

Nancy Pelosi, are you listening?