The whole issue of accountability is tricky. It’s clear that Bush and many others in his administration have not only lied to the American people but also committed war crimes (a quick review of the Nuremberg principles confirms that). The only question is how to actually hold them accountable and move on.I tend to agree with John Dean, who recently wrote in FindLaw: (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20061215.html)

“Getting the necessary two-thirds supermajority in support of impeachment in today's Senate, which is virtually evenly-divided politically, is simply not possible. With forty-nine senators of the 110th Congress members in good standing with the Republican Party, and most of them rock-ribbed conservatives, even if the House produced evidence of Cheney personally water-boarding ‘Gitmo’ detainees in the basement of his home at the Naval Observatory, with Bush looking on approvingly, there are more than thirty-three GOP Senators who still would not vote to convict. (Senate Republicans who have no problem with torture, or with removing the right to habeas corpus, and who refused to exercise any oversight whatsoever of Bush or Cheney, are hardly going to remove these men for actions in which they too are complicit.)”

Since “the Constitution's Impeachment Clause applies to all ‘civil officers of the United States’ - not to mention the president, vice president and federal judges,” Dean recommends an interesting option:

“Lowering the aim of an impeachment effort to focus on those who have aided and abetted, or directly engaged in, the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors, would have all the positives, and none of the negatives, of going after Bush and Cheney. It would not be an effort to overturn the 2004 election, but rather to rid the government of those who have participated, along with Bush and Cheney, in abuses and misuses of power; indeed, many among them have actually encouraged Bush and Cheney to undertake the offensive activities.

“Many of these men (and a few women) are young enough that it is very likely that they will return to other posts in future Republican Administrations, and based on their experience in the Bush/Cheney Administration, they can be expected to make the offensive conduct of this presidency the baseline for the next president they serve. Impeachment, however, would prevent that from happening.”

It’s a compelling idea – cleaning out the stables in a much broader impeachment than merely Bush. I don’t know if the Senate would have the stomach for that either, but it might be something to pursue. The obvious fear is that standard impeachment hearings would play right into the administration’s hands through a partisan acquittal, ultimately not holding them accountable.Another accountability angle is our own responsibility in allowing this hellish war to take place, an especially urgent issue given the saber-rattling over Iran. I know that many of us saw through the administration’s lies from the start and were marching in the streets and doing everything we could to stop the invasion of Iraq. The current build-up to Iran, including support among some Democrats, can’t be taken lightly, however, and in my view reflects a deeper structural change the Bush administration has foisted on our country: broad tolerance of the concept of “perpetual war.” Here are some thoughts on that topic:

It’s Not Just Bush: We’re Accountable Too

Blaming everything on a handful of people at the top, no matter how destructive and abusive they've been, misses a critical point. Systems tend to self-perpetuate. Remove one player and the next comes in to ensure business as usual.

Remove Rumsfeld, a man who helped prop up Hussein in the 80's and skewed intelligence towards war, and who do you get? Robert Gates, a man who helped prop up Hussein in the 80's and skewed intelligence towards war.

Replacing those in power won't help if the power structure itself doesn't change. And that means addressing how our own actions maintain this dysfunctional system.

Decades ago, Rumsfeld and Cheney hoodwinked the American people with fearmongering lies about Soviet military capability, and set the country on a path of paranoia and weapons build-up. 911 let them pull the exact same trick again, with a public more focused on macho vigilantism than on facts and diplomacy.

But the dirty little secret remains: a combative foreign policy requires perpetual conflict. After all, tough-talking cowboys and weapons manufacturers have little value in times of peace, so it's in their interest to foment never-ending strife. Maybe that's why top Pentagon strategist Air Force Brig. Gen. Mark O. Schissler recently warned Americans to prepare for a 50-100 year "generational war."

The Democrats also seem to be hunkering down for a long-term battle against evildoers; their "Six for '06" goals call for doubling the size of "Special Forces to destroy Osama bin Laden and terrorist networks like al Qaeda." An October 2006 report from the Democratic Leadership Council's Progressive Policy Institute additionally noted: "America needs a bigger and better military ... Democrats should step forward with a plan to repair the damage, by adding more troops, replenishing depleted stocks of equipment, and reorganizing the force around the new missions of unconventional warfare, counterinsurgency, and civil reconstruction.

The wild card in this march towards military domination remains Iran. Bush has already promised Israel protection if it bombs Iran's alleged nuclear facilities, and just this week, Congress voted to double the US stockpiles of military equipment in Israel (turns out that Israel had used much of the US equipment during its war with Lebanon this summer). Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert's recent admission that Israel possesses nuclear weapons is not expected to impact the billions in aid the country receives each year either, even though the US officially bans funding to those producing weapons of mass destruction.

While US involvement in an attack on Iran would invite Armageddon, Bush is backed into a corner domestically and may feel he doesn't have a whole lot to lose. Leading Democrats (including Clinton and Obama) have also called for the "military option" to be available for Iran, and would most likely push for troops/weapons to protect Israel from retaliation.

Some consider war with Iran as inevitable, but it isn't. The results would be catastrophic and the diplomatic options have not been adequately explored. More to the point, one must consider how the very legitimizing of perpetual conflict is devastating our national security. The Pentagon's budget currently runs over $430 billion per year, not including the roughly $140 billion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Democrats are expected to increase the military budget next year. Meanwhile, domestic social programs are being slashed to compensate for war spending and our military has become severely weakened.

The upshot? We the people need to retire the tough-talking cowboys in both political parties and dump the idea that perpetual conflict is a given. We have to hound members of the 110th Congress to pursue every possible option for peace in the Middle East and we must confront the fear of faceless enemies legitimizing rollbacks in our own civil liberties. Above all, we must hold ourselves accountable not to be fooled into war again.

Action Ideas:

1. To learn more about the lies leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq:
- Iraq on the Record (http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord)
- DowningStreetMemo.com (www.downingstreetmemo.com)
- AfterDowningStreet.org (www.afterdowningstreet.org)

2. To explore peaceful approaches to foreign policy:
- Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org)
- Global Issues (www.globalissues.org)
- One World (www.oneworld.net)
- Just Foreign Policy (www.justforeignpolicy.org)

3. To identify the cost of the Iraq War to U.S. taxpayers:
- Cost of War (www.costofwar.com)

Heather Wokusch is the author of The Progressives' Handbook: Get the Facts and Make a Difference Now, Volumes 1 & 2 (www.progressiveshandbook.com)