Bush is going down - the only question now is how quickly. I'll keep updating this page today...

A new AP-Ipsos poll has Bush's approval at 36/62=-26, Bush's worst net approval rating ever. And that poll was taken before Bush was identified as the Leaker-in-Chief. GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio says:

"These numbers are scary. We've lost every advantage we've ever had."

Rockingham VT became the 7th Vermont town to vote to Impeach Bush.

Don Cummings then stood up. Cummings said that he, too, was a veteran. He said he was 77 years old.

"In my humble opinion, the current administration is the worst I have ever seen," he said. "I am worried about the future of this country. It gets worse every day. I ask, can we afford another three years of this administration? Even a little town like Rockingham can say, 'We care. We think something is wrong.' This is a possible way of doing that."

Thersites2 wonders if Bush and Cheney told Fitzgerald the truth in their interviews, or if they covered up their actions - thus committing a very serious crime:

If Fitzgerald interviewed Bush and Cheney and one or both of them did not disclose that they had authorized leaks of the National Intelligence Estimate, would they be guilty of obstruction of justice?

Joseph Cannon agrees:

Fitzgerald probably spoke to W about the NIE estimate during his interview with the president. If Bush did not 'fess up at that time to authorizing the leak, and if Libby is telling the truth on this score (as I think he is) -- then Fitz has him.

Obstruction of justice. Lying to a prosecutor. Game over. Georgia thinks Bush can spin his way out of this one; I cannot agree. The American media may allow themselves to be bamboozled, but Fitz won't.

Remember what Patrick Fitzgerald said about obstruction of justice last October when he filed charges against Scooter Libby:

I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge.

This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

John Dean (who should know) smells a coverup:

no one other than Bush, Cheney, Libby and apparently Addington was aware of this unilateral and selective declassification - if, indeed, the NIE was declassified. The secrecy surely suggests cover-up.

John Conyers:

The real story here is not the President leaking, or declassifying, the NIE. If what Libby alleges is true, the story is about the President telling the world that he would fire anyone who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame when he knew it was himself... Very clearly, the story here is did the President tell the truth to the American people about the leak and who is going to get fired?

CIA veteran Larry C. Johnson:

Today's revelation is simple and riveting--the effort to smear Joe Wilson went to the very top of the White House. This was not an operation of rogue political operators. Instead, we have a rogue President. If we can impeach a President for lying about a blow job from an intern, the time has come to impeach a President from giving the American people a line of bullshit about Iraq used to justify a war that has left almost 2400 American soldiers dead. George Bush did not leak to protect America. He leaked to cover his ass. That, my friends, is the definition of a coward.

Scottie McClellan bobs and weaves his way through the Gaggle:

There was nothing in that that was declassified that could compromise our nation's security. It was some historical context about some of the intelligence that was used in making the decision to go to war in Iraq.

So why has the White House rejected every Democratic Resolution of Inquiry asking for the "historical" documents about the Downing Street Memos and related topics?

Alberto Gonzales told Congress that Bush can "legally" wiretap domestic calls without a warrant - which means he must be doing it. Even House Judiciary Chair Jim Sensenbrenner freaked out:

"How can we discharge our oversight if, every time we ask a pointed question, we're told the program is classified?" Sensenbrenner asked Gonzales near the start of a lengthy hearing on the department's activities. "I think that … is stonewalling."

Thersites2 writes:

This is how fascism starts, folks. It's not overreacting to observe that when the top law enforcement official in the country asserts the right to wiretap Americans' domestic calls without search warrants or Congressional oversight, forever, whenever the President thinks it's important, then we are looking at the beginnings of a totalitarian state.

Will the Senate Dems consider censuring the President NOW, or are they waiting to see how well the annexation of Austria Iraq turns out?

No one wants to be Bush's Treasury Secretary - normally considered one of the most prestigious jobs in America. Why? Because the job description is to sell permanent tax cuts for the rich that will result in permanent humongous deficits - what a legacy! Also when the real estate bubble bursts and the economy tanks, being Treasury Secretary is really going to suck.