I wish Gannon had something to do with the WH missing 52 warnings on 9/11

[NewYorkerfromMass]

because if there is one impeachable thing that we could get Republicans to go along with us on it is
laying blame on Bush's incompetence in preventing 9/11.
Everything else is a distraction IMO.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38531-2005Feb19.html

[Sanity Claws]

1. Incompetence is not enough for impeachment

My recollection is that it must high crimes and misdemeanors. I should the constitution to get the exact phrase but nevertheless mere incompetence is not enough.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. what about the coverup? nt

[Sanity Claws]

3. Who did the cover up? And why?

I read the Wash Post article but it's not clear to me that it can all be traced to Bush or that he and his cronies couldn't slime their way out of it.
I wouldn't mind that being one of about ten other items for which impeachment was sought but I don't think it would stand up by itself. Remember we have a Republican congress and anything short of a smoking gun won't get it to move. I think the crime must be sufficiently plain and obvious that constitutents start making a lot of noise and make the Repub Congress move.
My two cents

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. Given their history of resisting the 9/11 investigation

and the fact that these 52 warnings were made known only because of a FOIA filing by this private archive group, I'd say that MOST of the Bush admin's actions concerning 9/11 have been geared towards covering up their incompetence/indifference.