Carl Bernstein: Senate Hearings on Bush, Now

[samhsarah]

Worse than Watergate? High crimes and misdemeanors justifying the impeachment of George W. Bush, as increasing numbers of Democrats in Washington hope, and, sotto voce, increasing numbers of Republicans—including some of the president's top lieutenants—now fear? Leaders of both parties are acutely aware of the vehemence of anti-Bush sentiment in the country, expressed especially in the increasing number of Americans—nearing fifty percent in some polls—who say they would favor impeachment if the president were proved to have deliberately lied to justify going to war in Iraq.

John Dean, the Watergate conspirator who ultimately shattered the Watergate conspiracy, rendered his precipitous (or perhaps prescient) impeachment verdict on Bush two years ago in the affirmative, without so much as a question mark in choosing the title of his book Worse than Watergate. On March 31, some three decades after he testified at the seminal hearings of the Senate Watergate Committee, Dean reiterated his dark view of Bush's presidency in a congressional hearing that shed more noise than light, and more partisan rancor than genuine inquiry. The ostensible subject: whether Bush should be censured for unconstitutional conduct in ordering electronic surveillance of Americans without a warrant.

Raising the worse-than-Watergate question and demanding unequivocally that Congress seek to answer it is, in fact, overdue and more than justified by ample evidence stacked up from Baghdad back to New Orleans and, of increasing relevance, inside a special prosecutor's office in downtown Washington.

In terms of imminent, meaningful action by the Congress, however, the question of whether the president should be impeached (or, less severely, censured) remains premature. More important, it is essential that the Senate vote—hopefully before the November elections, and with overwhelming support from both parties—to undertake a full investigation of the conduct of the presidency of George W. Bush, along the lines of the Senate Watergate Committee's investigation during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon.

more at: http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060417fege08

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. "if the president were proved to have deliberately lied" IF????

[TayTay]

2. We absolutely need accountability hearings.

And we absolutely won't get them. The Rethug Congress knows that real hearings with subpeona power to back them up would be devastating to Bush and his cronies in the Admin. We can't even get Sen. Cover-up Roberts to fulfill his promise to hold the second set of hearings on what went wrong with the initial intelligence reports leading up to the war.

We do need hearings. But we won't get them unless a branch of Congress turns over to the Dems.

[Theduckno2]

3. We do need accountability hearings and we might get them.

I do believe that if the Republican leadership sees their political fortunes being better served by holding investigations rather than protecting Bushco, they may start hearings before November. This would have a lot to do with how well Democrats were polling going into the elections and whether they were in position to wrest control of the House and/or the Senate.

Not a likely senario, but I won't rule it out.

[progressoid]

5. Agreed, except that lately...

I wonder if our party is even capable of it. One need look no further than the dismal support for the censure resolution.

[jaysunb]

4. Powerful indictment......

:toast:

[ClayZ]

6. ITMFA! K and R

http://www.itmfa.com/

[sellitman]

7. "Worse Than Watergate " should be our mantra!

Every Liberal should repeat it daily. In every post, in every conversation, in every LTTE, when we wake up....and when we go to bed, until it HAS to be printed in the MSM.


"Worse Than Watergate "


Kevin

[KansDem]

8. Welcome back to the world of real journalism, Carl!

Too little, too late, though...