I have been asked often why George Bush has not been impeached for malfeasance, given the illegal intervention in Iraq, I have generally replied that Bush would have to be charged with ''high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Of course, we all know that the definition this concept is purely political inasmuch as Bill Clinton was impeached for consensual sex with a woman in the White House.

Compare what Bill Clinton did with Bush leading the country into an illegal war. He did so without the support of the country's strongest allies, under the false pretense of finding  ''weapons of mass destruction.''  In the process, we have wasted precious lives and financial resources. 

Congressman Charles Rangel has recently drawn up impeachment articles against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.   In remarks on the House floor, Rangel pointed out that the Constitution gives to the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment covering civil officers of the United States government. So far, only one such officer, Secretary of War William Worth Belknap, was impeached. And that was in 1876 for bribery.

I think an additional approach could be for the military’s commission of crimes against persons who are considered prisoners of war in contravention to the Geneva Convention. It could be leveled against both President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, It should be focused at the top.

Why?

Because Brig. General Mark Kimmitt and a  story in Newsweek magazine revealed that Rumsfeld demanded to personally sign off on various tactics would that would be used to interrogate prisoners at the Guantanomo Base facility in Cuba immediately after the September 11 attack. That fits his detail, hands-on style of micro-management that has driven the military crazy and caused him to be unpopular with the higher brass.

We are led to believe that Rumsfeld approved these measures without the authorization of the president of the United States. In fact, it is known that Bush was told by Rumsfeld in late January or early February of this year that abuses of the prisoners had occurred in the facility at Abu Ghraib. So, we are also led to believe that Bush knew about what had happened, but did not approve of Rumsfeld participating in a cover-up by keeping this information away from Congress or the American people.

That means we should also believe that Rumsfeld participated in a closed intelligence briefing for the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 28, but did not disclose the secret report prepared by Major General Antonio Tagabu on the atrocities - and that President Bush did not know of his cover-up. Then, we should also believe that General Myers, the commanding general, called ''60 Minutes II'' to keep them from showing the pictures and that he did this all on his own, without any direction from the White House. 

In other words, we are supposed to believe that Bush was not informed about all of this and did not issue any directives or guidance or make any decisions with respect to these events, taking the concept of ''deniability'' to one of the wildest heights in history.  Our ignorance can only be resolved in the court of an impeachment hearing.

What connects this administration to a ''high crime,'' is that it has committed war crimes as defined in the Geneva Convention. We have participated in an International Criminal Court hearing against the butcher Melosovich of Bosnia fame. And while at first blush the atrocities committed by the Bush folks don't appear to be anywhere near that, the fact is that we don't know of the extent to which this has occurred where prisoners have been kept. 

What is coming out is that there was tremendous pressure on the White House to justify its role in Iraq, to find weapons of mass destruction and to obtain the kind of intelligence that would lead them to Saddam Hussein and his remaining combatants who were killing American soldiers. This pressure was the fuel for the tactics used against other human beings and could have happened in other locations as well. 

So, the question is who, or what entity will lead where the information goes? 

The Democrats appear to be knock-kneed, lily-livered punks when it comes to achieving anything like the aggressiveness with which the Republican pursued Clinton. You wouldn't know there was an election going and this issue could decide it.  Karl Rove knows and he is putting up one hell of a fight for Bush while Democrats are tap-dancing.  If Bush gets overcomes this, John Kerry, his handlers, and Democratic National Committee leaders should be placed in a prison camp. Don’t even bother to send me the pictures.