How about firing George W. Bush?

I read Richard Cohen's (no relation) post-speech column in the WP and I kept saying, even until the very end, he has to conclude with a call for Bush's impeachment. But here is the conclusion:

The war Bush declared to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction is not the war being waged. The two have only one thing in common: rhetorical sleight of hand. Yet the consequences of pulling out of Iraq would be awful. The day Saigon fell I was ashamed for my country -- an ugly, disgraceful retreat. I don't want that to happen again. But unless Bush rethinks his strategy, fires some people who long ago earned dismissal, examines his own assumptions (what's the point of continuing to isolate Iran and Syria when we need them both to seal Iraq's borders?) and talks turkey to the American people, he will lose everything good he set out to do, including the example Iraq could set for the rest of the Middle East. I know Iraq is not Vietnam. But Tuesday night it sure sounded like it.

I don't get it. Didn't we once have a President who had a sign on his desk that said "the buck stops here"?
If he should fire "people who long ago earned dismissal," shouldn't we fire the man who's strategy is a disaster and who refuses to "talk turkey to the American people" (ie.lies).
Isn't it long past time to use the I-word? If the tables were turned the right-wing would have called for the President's impeachment during his first term. How long are we going to sit back and watch this mass murder of young U.S. men and women in Iraq and uncounted numbers of Iraqis and let it go on unchallenged?