In a diary a couple of weeks ago, I argued that we simply don't have the time to impeach Bush, even if we win back both Houses of Congress in landslides in 2006. Part of my argument is based on the notion that "if you come at the king, you best not miss." In other words, a failed impeachment strengthens the person who fights it off, as it did Clinton in 1998-9.
But there's another, better target for impeachment, and we might not even have to wait until 2007 to make it happen (although we probably will).
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
More on the flip.
Now I'm
certainly not the first to suggest this. Brad DeLong suggested it about three weeks ago and I'm sure others have bandied it about as well. DeLong argued that Gonzales could be impeached for lying to Congress. He cited
this from Think Progress:
SEN. FEINGOLD: I -- Judge Gonzales, let me ask a broader question. I'm asking you whether in general the president has the constitutional authority, does he at least in theory have the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he's commander in chief? Does he -- does he have that power?
MR. GONZALES: Senator, I -- you -- in my judgment, you phrase it sort of a hypothetical situation. I would have to know what -- what is the -- what is the national interest that the president may have to consider. What I'm saying is, it is impossible to me, based upon the question as you've presented it to me, to answer that question. I can say, is that there is a presumption of constitutionality with respect to any statute passed by Congress. I will take an oath to defend the statutes. And to the extent that there is a decision made to ignore a statute, I consider that a very significant decision, and one that I would personally be involved with, I commit to you on that, and one we will take with a great deal of care and seriousness.
(Side note: Feingold in 2008)
But what recent news reports have made clear is that not only has Gonzales lied to Congress (which happens all the time and doesn't result in impeachment), but he was an accessory in the law breaking that the Bush Administration took part in as regards this wiretapping program. He was Bush's White House Counsel when the program started, and was therefore involved in the inadequate briefings that Congress received about the scope of the program. He was still Counsel when he approached then AG Ashcroft in the hospital after Comey turned him down.
However, since the program continues, we must assume that as AG, he has signed off on the multiple times in the last year. He has become a co-conspirator in a wiretapping case, and since he did so in his official capacity as Attorney General, has abused his office and his position of responsibility.
That's a case we can make, both to the American people and to the Congress, and I dare say that we'll find some Republican congresspeople more willing to flip on an impeachment of a Cabinet officer than we will on a President.