In which I join the Order of the Shrill!

Impeach Bush? But he hasn't been caught having oral sex with anyone.

Criminal contempt of Congress is a federal law, signed into law by the President.

I'm not sure you intended that sentence to read the way I'm reading it... But it does seem apt.

I meant it that way.
The concept of "criminal contempt of Congress" is statutory and a federal law; it is an obligation of the Department of Justice to enforce this law.
The Office of the President does have a role in check and balance of enacting of laws, the President can veto laws. The contempt of Congress law was signed by the President at the time, the current President has no further role in the matter, he is subject to this law. He may of course challenge it in court, but he may not direct the DoJ to dispense with it.

Greenwald's comments are up (first update of likely many) at salon. Thought youd like to know.

My father and his father were Wall Street conservative
Republicans. Before he died, my father declared that
George W. Bush had betrayed his party, the
conservative cause, and the United States of America.

Bush is not as stupid as his detractors say, but he has thrown over half a trillion dollars of taxpayer's dollars, and thousands of lives, thown them to Hell for beliefs that fly in the face of the facts.

There is a connection, in psychology and sociology, between Scientific Revolution and Political revolution.

There is also a connection, in psychology and sociology, between Wooden-headedness and preconceived fixed notions in Science and in the geopolitical world.

Historian Barbara Tuchman wrote the best-selling book,
"The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam."

Tuchman wrote:

"Wooden-headedness ... plays a remarkably large
role in government. It consists of assessing a
situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while
ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs. It is acting
according to wish while not allowing oneself to be
deflected by the facts."

Tuchman referred in this context to the 16th century's
Philip II of Spain as the Nobel-laureate (so to speak)
woodenhead of all time: "No experience of the failure
of his policy could shake his belief in its essential
excellence." Comparisons, I know, can be invidious,
but Philip amassed too much power and drained state
revenues by failed adventures overseas, leading to
Spain's decline.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little
minds. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

In her book, Tuchman emphasized that courtiers can
reinforce the ruler's certitude, as was the case with
Philip and is the now the case with George Bush. And
if the courtiers are really good at it, they are
awarded the Medal of Freedom.

"Once a policy has been adopted and implemented,
all subsequent activity becomes an effort to justify
it.... Adjustment is painful. For the ruler it is
easier, once he has entered the policy box, to stay
inside. For the lesser official it is better ... not
to make waves, not to press evidence that the chief
will find painful to accept. Psychologists call the
process of screening out discordant information
'cognitive dissonance,' an academic disguise for
'Don't confuse me with the facts.'"

I read (on Slate, I think) that the Congress not only has the power to cite someone for contempt but to also compel his presence before Congress once a subpoena is issued. In fact, according to this story, the early Congress sent one of its own officials to take someone into physical custody.

Yeah, the Congress has Constitutional power of "inherent contempt" - it is not statutory and has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court.
The criminal contempt law is an addendum so that Congress is not shut down to hold inherent contempt hearings, and also a subtly different nature - the inherent contempt power expires with Congressional sessions, is there to compel witnesses, not punish them, and is not pardonable or commutable.

For a real constitutional crisis, you'd have an executive agency physicall resisting a arrest order for inherent contempt from Congress.
That's the point you get to decide if you're a roundhead or a cavalier; or if a prolonged leave in Sweden is prudent...

In the latter of your two choices Steinn, I shall go with being a Roundhead, on account of my rather crappy haircut. Well and supporting the legistlature in its fight against "the crown."

Haircut?

The cavaliers - the King's party - were renowned for their dandy looks with elaborate curled flowing hair; the roundheads - parliaments party - dressed severly and plainly and had severe and bad haircuts, typically pudding bowls or page boy cuts.

I think in this round the haircut issue is a wash, what with the dandys on both sides.