The I-Word

As Katrina vanden Heuvel states in her recent blog post, the I-word is gaining ground.

Here are some more editorials on that topic from all different areas of the political spectrum. Each has a unique take. One consensus seems to be clear... legally, there is no question that President Bush needs to be impeached for his actions. The only remaining question is whether the other two branches of government (you know, the ones the President has deemed irrelevant) are ready for the fight.

-Chicago Tribune (Steve Chapman): Beyond the imperial presidency

...But the theory boils down to a consistent and self-serving formula: What's good for George W. Bush is good for America, and anything that weakens his power weakens the nation. To call this an imperial presidency is unfair to emperors...

...The government easily could have gotten search warrants to conduct electronic surveillance of anyone with the slightest possible connection to terrorists. The court that handles such requests hardly ever refuses. But Bush bridles at the notion that the president should ever have to ask permission of anyone...

-Salon: Bush's impeachable offense-

Yes, the president committed a federal crime by wiretapping Americans, say constitutional scholars, former intelligence officers and politicians. What's missing is the political will to impeach him.

..."The fact is, the federal law is perfectly clear," [Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law] says. "At the heart of this operation was a federal crime. The president has already conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment."

Turley is no Democratic partisan; he testified to Congress in favor of Bill Clinton's impeachment. "Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism," he says. "I'm surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle."...

-WorldNetDaily (Ellen Ratner): Not a suicide pact

...During World War II, Frank Capra made a wonderful series called "Why We Fight," basically giving the reasons for the outbreak of the war and reminding soldiers of what America stood for. Bush does that now, constantly reminding us that our Islamo-fascist enemies "hate our freedom" and "oppose our liberty and way of life."

Well, here's a stupid idea: Let's start eroding our liberties, fudging our civil rights, ignoring due process, and maybe they'll like us better, eh? Of course, trying to explain "Why We Fight" becomes a much harder sell in a country where we're not quite as free as our parents were...

Also- The decisions of President Bush's advisors come under examination:
Bush's counsel on spying now under close scrutiny