Impeachable

President Bush refused to give a straight answer to NBC News' Kelly O'Donnell when she asked him if he had engaged in an action which, if he indeed did, would likely constitute and impeachable offense.

We're all used to the Bush deflection and dodge, the turning back of a question with a talking point delivered with macho bravado, a fratish insult to a reporter disguised as a wink. This time seems different -- check it out:

O'Donnell: There's been some very dramatic testimony before the Senate this week from one of your former top justice department officials, who describes a scene that some Senators called stunning about a time when the warrantless wiretap program was being reviewed. Sir, did you send your then chief of staff and White House counsel to the bedside of John Ashcroft, while he was ill to get him to approve os that program and do you believe that kind of conduct from White House officials is appropriate?

Bush: Kelly, there's a lot of speculation about what happened and what didn't happen and I'm not going to talk about it…It's a very sensitive program…

Whatever happened to, "No."?

The short version of the story seems to be that then Attorney General, the arch-Conservative John Ashcroft was actually against the illegal Bush/Cheney spying program, because spying on American citizens -- tapping their phones, reading their mail, reading their emails -- requires a warrant. And one that's not particularly hard or long for the intelligence services to get. But under El Presidente, his henchmen didn't even bother getting those fig leaves.

Ashcroft had just had major surgery when Bush appears to have sent over his personal attorney, current Attorney General (but not for very long anymore) Alberto Gonzales and then Chief-of-Staff Andrew Card, to the hospital get Ashcroft to sign off that the program was somehow legal -- give the blessing of the Department of Justice.

The whole argument was based on some dubious legalese written by authoritarian scholar John Yoo, a man who seems to think the Constitution has granted royal powers to George W. Bush. Even Ashcroft didn't buy it, and despite his wife's protestations to lay off, Gonzales and Card hit the hospital room where the drugged up, recovering Ashcroft still refused to bless this lawbreaking.

I've long said that those who underestimate Bush's awareness, involvement and even direction of his Administration's crimes will later learn how bad things really have been. So when El Presidente ducks a question about his involvement, if he indeed did make the phone call that sent Card and Gonzales to Ashcroft's bedside, even the previously Administration-friendly Washington Post editorial page is flipping out:

Yes, Mr. Bush backed down in the face of the threat of mass resignations, Mr. Ashcroft's included, and he apparently agreed to whatever more limited program the department was willing to approve. In the interim, however, the president authorized the program the Justice lawyers had refused to certify as legally permissible, and it continued for a few weeks more, according to former deputy attorney general James B. Comey's careful testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Under the Constitution, the president has the final authority in the executive branch to say what the law is. But as a matter of presidential practice, this is breathtaking.

The blogosphere is, as usual, more direct. Per Digby:

In any case, Bush was deeply involved. He met with both Comey and Mueller on the issue after they all said they'd resign. The spinners are trying to say that their Dear Leader finally overruled others who had nefarious intentions , but his refusal to answer the question today should put that to rest. There's no reason for him to launch into such outdated 2003 gibberish about enemies lurking who "would like to strike" if he didn't order it. It's obvious that he did.

This has come to a head after former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey revealed the story in blockbuster Senate testimony yesterday. Everyone is D.C. is still getting a grip on it. The upshot is that since Gonzales is putting his body in the way of El Presidente and probably Karl Rove, the next attempt to shame him into resigning will be a Senate "no confidence" vote.

It's more and more likely to pass as Republicans turn against Gonzales every day. In fact, per the Evans-Novak report, the GOP now wishes that this Administration would just go away.

This was the turning point for disgraced President Richard Nixon, leading to his ignominious resignation. When your own Party finds you such a weighty liability, when you've shredded the Constitution long enough and can't hide behind the scraps of it anymore, you're toast.

Most prophetically of all, the question that may just signal the beginning of the end of Bush and Cheney and Rove's reign of torture, illegal spying on Americans, felonious cronyism and oil-thirsty war, happened during a Rose Garden press conference featuring visiting British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Blair ruined his once brilliant career by backing Bush in invading Iraq, and has now been forced by his own Labour Party and leaden public polls to resign effective June 27th. As Dana Milbank writes, also in the WaPo:

For President Bush, the sensation must have been akin to watching his own funeral.

Listen; can you hear the bell toll?


Crossposted to The Daily Reel.