No. It isn’t a criminal statute, I don’t think. So there’s no talk of him going to jail over this. Unless, of course, he obstructed investigation or lied about the issue to investigators.
But, as these things continue to pile up, there might be more support for the kind of investigations that might ultimately lead to criminal charges.
Don’t much care if Cheney goes to jail, very much doubt that he will, regardless. I want the truth. If that isn’t enough, well, my dog wants the truth too.
Your dog can’t handle the truth.
I agree. So I guess we just have to sit back and wait until the truth comes out.
Which of course it always does, quickly and on its own, with no one having to look for it. Convenient, that.
There will be hundreds of people actively looking for it. If I were in that business, I’d be, too. But I’m not.
But the ones with subpoena power will use it only under more extreme duress than they’ve been subjected to so far.
Wait – isn’t this the kind of crap we used to pull down in South and Central America during the Cold War?
Regards,
Shodan
While the majority of the facts may indeed be true for those, the conclusion is not. For example. It’s quite true that Bush pursued a unitary executive policy. However, there is no evidence he intended transform the presidency into an imperial one. There is no evidence he intended to invade Iran. There is no evidence he started the civil war in the Gaza strip. There is no evidence he sent the DOJ lawyers after campaign opponents for some nefarious purpose.
I think we must disagree about the meaning of evidence. To take your list one-by-one:
[T]here is no evidence he intended transform the presidency into an imperial one. The term “imperial presidency” is clearly defined by the OP and links in that thread to be an executive with powers aggrandized beyond those claimed by previous administrations. That claim is absolutely supported by evidence, and indeed is conceded by people like John Yoo. If you have any doubt, read the government’s briefs in Hamdi and Hamdan. They claim vast powers inherent in Article II of the Constitution that were new at the time, and have been disavowed by the current president. In any case, BG was always clear in those threads that he saw the issue as a long-term, bipartisan problem.
**There is no evidence he intended to invade Iran. ** I think this is probably your strongest case. The evidence offered is that the Administration disagreed with the CIA assessment about Iran’s nuclear capability; the administration sought legislation to label quasi-state actors in Iran as terrorist groups; and Bush expanded covert operations in Iran. AFAIK, all of those things are true. I agree that they are relatively circumstantial, but then, evidence of intent is almost always circumstantial. This seems like more of a different of opinion over the import of the evidence rather than an absolute lack of evidence.
There is no evidence he started the civil war in the Gaza strip. The evidence was cited in that thread. The article cited reads, “Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war.” One report from Vanity Fair constitutes relative weak evidence. We can agree that it is far from conclusive evidence. But to my eyes, it’s enough evidence to start a reasonable discussion about the incident. Why isn’t it?
There is no evidence he sent the DOJ lawyers after campaign opponents for some nefarious purpose. Well, there’s the interview with the US Attorney who claimed that Gonzales wanted him to bring bogus voter fraud cases. And there’s the sworn court documents indicating that Edwards contributors were vigorously and improperly investigated. Given all the things we know for sure about DOJ politicization, these both seem pretty persuasive.
So I think it’s fair to say that on some of these there is evidence, but not conclusive evidence. And on others (aggrandizement of executive powers, DOJ politicization), the evidence is quite compelling.
For the record, I loathe everything about everyone in the Bush administration. But the only thing I have a problem with in this particular, is the lack of oversight. The existence of a CIA hit squad doesn’t bother me one whit.
I distinctly remember a bit of dialog from the much-maligned West Wing post-911 “very special” episode. Press Sec’y CJ Gregg throws out the opinion that the appropriate response to a massive terrorist attack may come from “a busboy with a Beretta”. Sounds exactly like what Cheney had in mind, and I don’t have a problem with that.
Geez, don’t you people know anything? Those weren’t assassins, they were Action Rangers tasked to help the Vice-President protect the space-time continuum.
It’s in the Constitution.
I agree.
FTR I want a check and balance. I make no distinction whether Obama or Bush or whoever is doing this.
I do blame Bush for expanding executive power in this way and I also condemn Obama for seemingly wanting to continue some of it.
Apart from all those pesky dead women and children. Or do you not have a problem with that either?
No, I’m saying that whacking an al Qaeda operative in a restaurant is a more effective solution to terrorism than, say, invading Iraq.