can you hear me now?

On Friday, I called for the impeachment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and added that it just might help greater America warm to the idea of removing Cheney and Bush next.

Sure, some (typical understatement) were initially skeptical. . . but things are, as they say, developing.

On Sunday, The New York Times and Senator Chuck Schumer got part of the way there. And, on Monday, Times columnist Paul Krugman explicitly used the “i” word (good for him!).

Tuesday’s papers move the ball quite a bit further down field.

Administration officials did a document dump last night (not on a Friday, but on a Monday! A sign of panic?), Gonzales’s chief of staff has resigned, and papers like The Washington Post and The New York Times are just beginning to sort through it all.

So am I. But give a read to the second paragraph in the NYT article:

Last October, President Bush spoke with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to pass along concerns by Republicans that some prosecutors were not aggressively addressing voter fraud, the White House said Monday. Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, was among the politicians who complained directly to the president, according to an administration official.

Maybe it’s just me, but I see the name Bush in there. Not just “an administration official” or “a Bush aide” or even some now cold body, like Harriet Miers—it says “President Bush spoke with” Gonzales. And, as the article points out, a couple of weeks after that, seven US attorneys were fired without cause.

So, now who’s with me?


(And, by the way, note that Bush was talking about “voter fraud” and not “voter suppression.” As the last five years have shown us, “addressing” the former seems to pretty much imply committing the latter. Sounds like another article of impeachment to me.)