Scum always floats to the surface...
In perhaps the least surprising revelation of this whole affair, we finally find out that President Bush authorized the whole thing. He's lucky the House is just a collection of partisan hacks without a statesman among them, or else he'd be impeached so fast he'd beat Andy Card to the door. Of course, the Admin has been so good about desensitizing the American People to brazen, illegal and immoral acts by this President, I wonder if anyone will even bat an eye at these shocking revelations.
Maybe the GOP has convinced the American People that impeachment is only for oral sex.
posted by Pete @ 4/06/2006 12:28:00 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
According to CNN, the filing did NOT mention Plame.
Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide testified that President Bush authorized the release of parts of a classified report on Iraq to rebut criticism of the case for the 2003 invasion, federal prosecutors disclosed in documents released Thursday.
The information did not name CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose 2003 exposure triggered an investigation that led to the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Let's discuss the actual content of the leaked information and its relative 'scumminess' before we get too far ahead of ourselves. Also, please decide in advance if the President will be playing the role of 'political mastermind' or 'bumbling idiot' as I have such a hard time keeping it straight.
I also noticed the careful distinction that Bush authorized the leak of classified information but not necessarily the specific leak of Valerie Plame's identity. I'm wondering, though, if that really makes a difference. Here's a sitting president leaking classified war information to further a political agenda. I think that's a far more heinous act than outing a covert operative, to be honest. As Howard Dean has said, how can we trust this man with the safety of our country if he's putting political gain ahead of national interest--and abusing his power in the process? 'Bumbling idiot' or 'political mastermind' is irrelevant. He did wrong and there should be consequences.
I chuckled when I read in this morning's Washington Post,
"The White House refused to comment directly on the court filing, except to point out that Bush's very decision to discolose classified information means he declassified it -- an assessment shared by independent legal experts."
Awesome. It continues,
"A senior administration official, speaking on background because White House policy prohibits comment on an active investigation, said Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done."
I bet he does. Both are from Michael A. Fletcher's piece, "Testimony Adds New Element to Probe of CIA Leak" A9. The front page Washington Post story is here.
My dear friend Randy, what role are Bush supporters going to play on this one: "lemming-like devotees" or "unblinking zealots"?
The ridiculous heights to which our collective partianship and polarization have soared make it hard to pin that tail to any one donkey's tail.
Do you believe Clinton should have been impeached for getting a hummer in the hallway, and lying about it, and Bush not impeached for the following (choose any three): Cheney's WH-Enron rendezous(es), "The Case for War!", Abu Ghraib, Plame Scandal, Halliburton's No-Bid Bonanza, Abramoff Ties, GitMo Bay Torture, CIA Secret Prisons...
Statement from article:
"Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame leak that Cheney told him to pass on the information and that it was Bush who authorized the leak, the court papers say."
To me this says that Cheney told Libby that Bush had authorized the Plame leak. Was Cheney lying? Was Cheney misinterpreting or expanding the written authorization? Was Cheney relaying verbal instructions that the President gave him, while carefully ensuring the written record did not reflect the depths of depravity the Admin was sinking to?
Who knows. But regardless of what option you choose, you merely find yourself on a different part of the sliding "scuminess" scale.
Not to get even further ahead of myself, but here's what the Republican U.S. Attorney handling this case said in his court filing:
"Fitzgerald's brief uses unusually strong language to rebut this claim. In light of the grand jury testimony, the prosecutor said, 'it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson.'"
Quoting the language used by Bush's hand-picked prosecutor re: the Admin's vindictive scumminess circumspect enough for all parties?
I looked over your list of impeachable offenses, Sean, and while I agree that Bush and the Admin. continue to display less than ethical behavior, I feel the real target for many of the folks on this blog should be the Democratic Party. More than half of the offenses listed took place prior to the 2004 election. That being said, shame on the Democrats for being incapable of providing a viable candidate to "overthrow" this wayward admnistration. When will the Democrats realize that finger pointing and name calling are not winning elections for their party? Perhaps it's time to take all of that energy and build a platform from which they can profess some real views and ideas, rather than the "we will do better than them" battle cry that has cost them political seats over the past ten years. Were I a Democrat, and I thank my personal god every day that I am not, I would be more worried about how to keep Mrs. Clinton from securing the primary and ensuring a third straight loss for the party in the presidential elections.
I agree wholeheartedly Todd. The Democratic Party has no identity other than one of being in opposition to the Republican Party, which itself has become the big spending, God party... which must mean Dems are for prudent spending and not for God. Right? Color me confused and ready to vote Libertarian, Green, or for Lyndon H. LaRouche.
Post a Comment
<< Home