Cheney too. Scooter’s boss, ya know. Certainly much closer to the action, whatever that action may be. Cheney’s impeachable. Won’t happen with a GOP House, though, not even with DeLay at a step removed.
As far as we know, that is, and we still have only rumors and gossip and guesswork. It’s remarkable that an operation of the significance of Fitzgerald’s, in Washington, has has no credible leaks whatever. Give him a ton of credit for that even if he doesn’t do anything else at all.
If Dubya lies on the stand about Condi giving him a hummer, I will be the very first Librul to leap to his defense. I promise.
Oh, come on, Hung Mung, you can do better than that. The sure knowledge that X is a CIA covert op leads counterintelligence types to investigate all of his her contacts, arresting some, and in countries where human rights aren’t very valued (which is a LOT of countries) torturing and killing some.
If this stuff isn’t all that valuable, why was it that one of the things Aldrich Ames did for the Soviets was reveal the name of covert US agents?
So, yeah, getting US allies tortured and killed … that’s not important. That’s not a loss for the US … suuuuuure Mung. It’s cheap sophistry at best, cynical partisanship at worst.
I didn’t realize Fitzgerald had interviewed Cheney OR Bush. Could someone link to an article about that? I suspect that Googling “Fitzgerald Bush” isn’t going to get me very far :).
If he has, and if they lied to him, but they were not under oath, would they have broken any laws?
Daniel
Oh yeah, even if not under oath, if they lied or misled that could constitute obstruction of justice. That was the subject of one of Nixon’s impeachment articles, btw.
I would think obstruction & conspiracy, if nothing else.
I’m neither a sophist nor a partisan, especially not for the people I voted against.
When I really thought about, I think I’m just being overly optimistic. Or naive. The idea that someone who is supposed to be so fucking smart would intentionally botch our intelligence services and endanger others is mind-boggling.
Whatever, I’ll fucking shut up. I’m a terrible debater.
If he’s guilty of perjury? Absolutely he should be expelled from the House.
Of course she doesn’t. But she is probably not speaking just for herself. She is more likely the first person to lay out talking points and buzzphrases that will be used by others who will come to the defense of whoever is accused in this thing. From yesterday’s New York Times
If nobody else says any of these things, I’ll be surprised (and so will Hentor and others, I bet) and it’ll just be Kay Bailey’s hypocrisy. Otherwise, it’ll be the hypocrisy of a bunch of people.
The treason - criminal conduct discussion has always been a diversion. It is difficult to rationally discuss because it does involve a fairly complicated game of “lawyer-ball” and spin doctoring. We can be pretty sure that if anyone is indicted in this the defendants will have the services of the best and best paid practitioners of the arcane skill of quasi-political criminal defense. There is going to be so much splashing and roiling of the waters, so much dust in the air and in the eyes, that no one of ordinary intelligence and ordinary attention span is going to be able to keep track of what is going on.
All that is diversion. What is important is that this Administration has demonstrated that it will go to great lengths, expose its employees and its citizens to great danger, in order to punish people who catch them in a lie. It is as if the emperor had the kid who pointed out that he had no cloths taken out and shot. The principal characteristic of this Administration is a ruthless focus on agenda. God help anybody who gets it their way. The Administration has demonstrated time and time again that it has no sense of decency and that the only principle it espouses is that the end justifies any means.
I can only hope, for the sake of my country, that this is the last drop that overflows the bucket and that the Rove-Bush attack machine has now lost all ability to intimidate and all credibility.
The interesting thing is that Bush is not playing along with the people criticizing the investigation. Perhaps it’s the “stay above it” strategy?
Eh, that’s standard procedure for them – keep yourself “presidential” and “above the fray” even as you send out the proxies to smear your enemies (John Kerry’s swiftboat “veterans for ‘truth’”, John McCain’s “illegitimate black child”, etc.).
I think it is a serious charge and in the event of a conviction, then it should warrant a removal from office. I’m not convinced that Earle or Fitzgerald have the goods on Delay and/or Plamefest, and as much as I despise their fascist politics, I’ll wait for the convictions, or at least see the evidence, before I advocate removing them from office. But what do I know, I actually think that Michael Jackson “sleeps” with boys without molesting them.
Take a look at this (pp. 48 - ) and give me your opinion:
Paraphrasing:
Q: Where you alone with Monica Lewinsky in the oval office?
Clinton: I don’t recall (p. 52)
Q: Where you ever alone with ML in the hallway between the oval office and the kitchen?
Clinton: I don’t believe so (p. 58)
Q: Have you ever been alone with ML in any room in the white house?
Clinton: I have no specific recollection (p. 59)
Just read the thing and tell me if you think he wasn’t lying.
While it’s been pointed out this trick isn’t particularly new, I guess it should be pointed out as well that’s it’s not particularly limited by party affiliation.
Doubtless (if it hasn’t started already,) those who pooh-poohed perjury charges the last time around will start going on about how serious the charge of perjury is this time around, and call to impeach, just as those who called to impeach last time, will now be the pooh-pooers of perjury.
All that’s changed is the players. The wheel of politics rolls around and now it’s Dems taking potshots at Repubs and pointing out the emperor has no clothes, while the Repubs strut in their supposed finery.
Hypocrisy thy name is politics, and the only real fools are those who think it’s any different this time the criminal justice system is politicized.
Are they guilty? They’re politicians. That’s answer enough.
There were no perjury charges last time.
Wow. Probably lying, yes. At least, that’s what I thought when Reagan used almost those exact words in the Iran/Contra hearings.
Doubtless the same strategy will be used: the pooh-poohers will say, “For God’s Sake, he was only lying about whether he risked someone’s life in an effort to cover up bigger lies that got us into a war in which thousands of people died! Geez, get over yourselves, people!” Because that’s what we said last time about the blowjob lies.
Daniel
So, if instead of slipping state secrets to Trrist’i’stan I were to just make several thousand copies of the relevent data and deliver it all over the planet that would be okay?
As long as I wasn’t ‘adhering to’ any specific group or government it would be perfectly cool?
-Joe