I have just finished watching the whole thing. Very worthwhile to watch it, Stilly, if you have the time available.

There's a good deal of insight into present and possible future scenarios in Iraq and Iran.

There is also a lengthy discussion of how the USA goverment has morphed from a constituional democracy (its original design) into a one-man rule by a singer "decider" (the president) which is decidedly unconstitutional and in violation of the law and the president's own oath of office. This has been process that began in Harry Truman's administration and further proceeded through a number of succeeding administrations, most notably those of LBJ, Nixon, and G.W.Bush.

This is not a case of "Republicans bad, Democrats good". This is a case of a progressive and covert takeover of the government and betrayal of the US Constitution by the executive office and national security agencies, a takeover tacitly orchestrated by BOTH parties, and with the collusion of highly powerful people in BOTH parties.

This is not a partisan matter at all. It is a slow motion coup, being achieved in stages, with the will to achieve it being expressed through the executive branch of the US government.

To put it simply, loyalty to one single man, the president (the "commander-in-chief"), is being used in the minds of many thousands of government people (from the mighty down to the meek)... to trump people's sworn loyalty to the Constitution. That is unconstitutional action, and it amounts to the establishment of what could be termed a presidential monarchy...or a dictatorship...but one wearing sheep's clothing, so to speak.

It evokes powerful myths in people's minds that have long been established: that if the president (the surrogate father of the country) asks you to do something, then your loyalty to the country demands that you do it.

But what if the president asks you to do something that is clearly unconstitutional? (such as illegally starting a war without a declaration of war BY Congress) (such as illegally abrogating constitutional civil rights of citizens) (such as illegally torturing prisoners of war) (such as illegally attacking a country which has not attacked the USA or anyone else and couldn't realistically do so even if they wanted to) (such as lying about WMDs in Iraq and lying about supposed attacks on American ships...ex: Tonkin Gulf Resolution)

What then???? Well, most people's normal reaction is immediately to obey the president, to obey their "commander-in-chief" when he issues an order, not to go to their library and read the Constitution for several hours or for several days and then try and figure out if the president just asked them to do something unconstitutional!

They haven't got time to be consitutional lawyers. They are under pressure. They obey orders.

In similar fashion, people like Hitler and Mussolini and a host of lesser such types ended up getting their people to obey illegal orders too. There is plenty of precedent for doing this sort of thing with any executive office that sees itself as above the law...or as the one who in practice IS the effective law of the country.

That's unconstitutional. The president is not supposed to be a monarch, and he is not supposed to be above the law...nor does he make the law. He is subject to the law, just like any other citizen.

A commander in chief who violates the Constitution must be impeached if the Constitution is to remain in effect at all.

I notice that Dennis Kucinich has taken note of that, and he has not stopped pressing in Congress for the impeachment of both George Bush and Dick Cheney.