I apologize if this has come up, but I haven't seen it put this way.
It seems to me that we might be entering a new phase in the struggle against the Bush gang, and it's all about finding a new Attorney General.
Beyond that this might be the point at which impeachment can no longer be ignored by those with the means to effect it.
My first point seems almost a logical necessity, the impeachment corollary depends more on Congress-people acting with integrity, so maybe we should forget that, but again simple logic may force some action.
Of course all of this does suppose that at least most Democrats and just a few Republicans will act on principle, and either way we'll find out soon enough.
Follow me below the fold for a very brief diary:
Ok, is it this simple?
Bush simply cannot nominate someone for the position of Attorney General who is going to say that waterboarding is torture. He just can't, or he is putting someone in front of the Congress of the United States who is saying, at the very least, that he is a liar ("We do not torture"). Beyond the he is putting someone on the stand who is in essense saying that George Bush ordered people to break the law, although this can be talked away more easily then the simple accusation of liar.
The democrats are very close to saying that they will not approve a nominee who won't say that waterboarding is torture. Whether or not this can stick should be seen sometime next week. If it does then it seems to follow that there is no way for any Bush nominee to be confirmed.
If, then, we have truly reached this impasse, how long will it be before that fact becomes so apparent that the MSM and "serious" members of Congress can fail to talk about it in these simple terms. If that happens: if the "serious people", aka the establishment, begins to speak of Bush being afraid to nominate anyone who can't get past this basic question because it implies he broke the law - well, how can they avoid at least beginning to speak of impeachment as well.
Am I crazy?