Her opening paragraph sets the table nicely:

Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush--not in hushed whispers but openly, in newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in Congress. As a former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, I believe they are right to do so.

She writes of being troubled by the lack of Bush living up to our treaty obligations (torture), and the misleading of our country into the war in Iraq.  But it was the illegal wiretapping by NSA that returned that pit in the stomach feeling for this former representative:

As a matter of constitutional law, these and other misdeeds constitute grounds for the impeachment of President Bush. A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law--and repeatedly violates the law--thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal from office. A high crime or misdemeanor is an archaic term that means a serious abuse of power, whether or not it is also a crime, that endangers our constitutional system of government.

<snip>

But impeachment and removal from office will not happen unless the American people are convinced of its necessity after a full and fair inquiry into the facts and law is conducted. That inquiry must commence now.

Former Representative Holztman proceeds to tear apart the rationale provided thus far by the Bush Administration of the "Commander-in-Chief"-idea whereby he can do anything (also used by Bush to ignore the McCain anti-torture amendment) and any defense of ignoring the FISA court, put into place because of the Nixon abuses of wiretapping Americans in the name of National Security.

Holtzman writes that Bush is "Subverting Our Democracy", and failing to faithfully follow the oath of office.  This is what really gets my undies in a bunch -- since Bush boasts of his obvious Constitutional violations, and provides no indication of stopping them -- I really don't even see the need for hearings, impeachment proceedings can start just based on the record.  But I do understand it is a Republican Congress.

Holtzman concludes with actions we are already doing, such as letter writing and contacting our Senators and Representatives to demand hearings, along with supporting organizations (AfterDowningStreet.org and ImpeachPac.org) that are actively working towards this end.

Her final paragraphs:

Finally, if this pressure fails to produce results, attention must be focused on changing the political composition of the House and Senate in the upcoming 2006 elections. If a Republican Congress is unwilling to investigate and take appropriate action against a Republican President, then a Democratic Congress should replace it.

As awful as Watergate was, after the vote on impeachment and the resignation of President Nixon, the nation felt a huge sense of relief. Impeachment is a tortuous process, but now that President Bush has thrown down the gauntlet and virtually dared Congress to stop him from violating the law, nothing less is necessary to protect our constitutional system and preserve our democracy.

Here's hoping that this bubbles to the surface, with James Risen's book and the true whistleblowers come out to provide a truth and a healing bright light upon the secrecy that started in earnest the minute Dick Cheney was selected by the Rehnquist Court, a decision re-affirmed in the 2004 Blackwell v. Voting Public case.