- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The list of offenses for which the Bush Administration ought to be investigated by the House Judiciary Committee, as provided by Dirigo, is pretty good as far as it goes, but I would look back to Watergate, and the way the votes eventually fell then, to argue for augmenting it. Not all of the proposed articles of impeachment against Nixon passed, not because they weren't equally heinous, but because there were so many. As a result, dropping funds impoundment, Cambodia, etc., still left even the most bamboozled Republican members forced to accept the fact that a half dozen or so of the things Nixon had done were really beyond rationalization, and vote accordingly, albeit reluctantly. History gave us "Don't confuse me with the facts," from the era's most famous dead-ender, an argument that didn't really work then, and might not even work now.
For this reason, I think that Hatch Act violations, signing statements, repeated defiance of subpoenas and other court orders, and the absurdly obvious and abundant instances of financial corruption should be formally investigated as well, if only to give the Republicans a longer list of jaw-dropping outrages for which to publicly advocate, if they want to.
Rrheard re: Olemaboy... "Get off me Daddy, yer crushin' my cigarettes."
