Senate Hearings on Bush, Now...By CARL BERNSTEIN

[shraby]

This is one kick-ass article in Vanity Fair by Bernstein. A must read! Too much to pick out the best graphs. Here is a taste.

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.

(much more)
<http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060417fege08>

[Lasher]

1. Impeachment sentiment

When asked if they are in favor of impeachment, I believe most would say no. But more appropriately, if asked if full and public Congressional investigations should be held to learn what was done by this administration and when, I believe at least 60% would approve. I've never seen a poll question to this effect, so I'm guessing.

[greekspeak]

2. Poll questions versus fishing expiditions

One of the first things I learned after I got to college was how easily data is manipulated. At 18, having grown up in an RW house that didn't question the status quo very much, I had never considered it. I just kinda trusted it. Just like a lot of Americans do. Even when data is mined honestly, it is very easily manipulated. Damning evidence is left out, or glossed over. If they would ask a straight forward question like you have put forth, I think you might see different numbers.