Shorter David Broder

Dig this crazy reasoning:

Suppose the investigators decide that the country does not want to see the former president and vice president in the dock. Then underlings pay the price while big shots go free. 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.

Don't investigate because we can't hold the President accountable for violating the law and we can't hold others accountable for violating the law when we won't hold the President accountable.

Here's an idea: How about we suppose that the country (and not just Broder) decides whether they want to see Bush and Cheney in the dock after all the facts are made available to them. And how about we further suppose that the investigators will follow the law and will indict or not based on the facts, as the law requires them to do, rather than follow some opinion poll. You know, like what is supposed to happen for every other citizen of the United States. Or, better yet, why don't we not fucking suppose at all, and just find out the facts instead.

The biggest flaw in Broder's reasoning is that assumption that George W. Bush is at all a man of honor. Of course, Broder's conclusion that Bush is a man of honor is based on his belief that Bush never got blown in the Oval Office.