Impeachment: where to start?
Last week's Senate testimony from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales did not do anything to help his situation out. In their reactions to his testimony (or lack thereof), the Senators on the Judiciary committee alternated between outright hostility and exasperation. Yesterday, the New York Times called (again) for Gonzales to be impeached, and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said he expects to open a perjury investigation this week if Gonzales doesn't clear up his testimony. And Fox News couldn't get someone to defend Gonzales during the Sunday rounds. So even Republicans are walking away from this lemon, and I can't imagine they wouldn't support impeachment - not with the evidence against Gonzales that has piled up.
And there's still lots of talk about a Cheney impeachment, too. More and more, in fact. Here's more astute commentary from John Nichols (the Nation) on the subject:
The stakes are enormous: If Bush and Cheney are not held accountable, this administration will hand off to its successors a toolbox of powers greater than any executive has ever held -- more authority, concentrated in fewer hands, than the Founders could have conceived or would have allowed. ... Among the thousands of responses after the program aired in mid-July, there was a steady theme: This is no longer a partisan issue. Inside the Beltway, the calculus these days rarely gets beyond the next election; but outside it there are tens of millions of Americans worried about the next generation -- indeed, about the fate of the republic.
The total number of sponsors of the Kucinich Cheney Impeachment measure (HR 333) has edged up to 15. And to top it off, my neighbor asked me this weekend where I got my "Impeach Bush/Cheney" sign. She wants one that includes Cheney, too - not just Bush. I got mine here.
