so when do those impeachment hearings begin?

[marshalolson]

^^^ that makes sense ^^^

[Woodsy]

Firstly,\
its not payback.
Thjis admin has consistantly and repeatedly broken the law and flaunted their overreaches of executivepower.
secondly, anyone who believes Cheney is not President already is deluding himself.
illegally spying on Americans,
the rush to war,
the leaksto discredit critics all his babies.
He is more involved in this than the president.

And whomever succeeded Bush & Dick would pardon them, and cost themsleves votes in the next election.
How the fuck do you think we got an underqualified Peanut Farmer in the white house a while back?

[BLOODSWEATSTEEL]

[Lurch]

I would have had a good laugh when I first heard this on NPR if this guy wasn't our f**king president.

Can we get some good candidates from both sides in 2008? At this point I wouldn't care if the guy had a completely different view on the world than I do as long as he was competent and had a shred of integrity.

[Monique]

Totally OT, but I'm currently about 3/4 of the way through the same book. Really enjoying it.

Me too, I'm at about 2/3. Author has a wicked sense of humor. The notion of making a political coup literally a stage play...! (BTW it goes well with this week's (last week's?) New Yorker article about who the real audience is for judicial confirmation hearings.) And the way most citizens just draw the curtains and watch TV, congratulating each other on what good news this all is for the country....

[MassLiberal]

I am reading a novel called Snow, which is set in Turkey, and the plot centers on corruption and cronyism at all levels of government and quasi-government...and on the tension between a secular state structure and religious extremists who are jockeying for positions of power. Pretty brutal stuff, and oh so brutally familiar. The details are different but the themes are exactly the same as the reality in the U.S. under George W. Bush. Democracy is a fucking farce as long as his administration is in power.

Who's the author??

[Grange]

There are a few problems there.

Firstly, the overwhelming majority of americans viewed the republican impeachment negatively, and it wound up hurting the republicans in 1998. So why shoot a dead horse when it will only seem petty and political. Once the house is won, censure the president, and leave it at that. Bush isn't goin to get any better at presidenting in the next two years.

When Clinton was impeached he had a much higher approval rating than Bush currently has. 60+% compared to Bush's 34% so it wasn't surprising that the public wasn't for the impeachment of Clinton.

Secondly, The country isn't quite sure it wants the president impeached. If the Democrats ran on an "impeach Bush" platform, they would almost certainly have a tougher time gaining control of congress, since that would motivate the evangelicals to vote (right now, they are starting to make some noise that the administration hasn't done enough for the community, and are threatening to stay home unless a more actively pro-life, pro-christian agenda is taken up. However, given the recent overstep in South Dakota, the GOP no longer has the leeway to do this and still keep moderates in their camp).

I am not advocating they run on an impeach Bush platform. I said if the Democrats get control of congress then they would pursue impeachment. I agree that it wouldn't be smart for Democrats to talk of impeachment before the can gather evidence, which is hard to do with the republicans running all the committees.

Thirdly, Would you want Cheney as president? (he almost certainly would be if Dems took over the house)

I certainly wouldn't want Cheney as president. Being impeached doesn't mean Bush would be removed from office, but it would send a signal that lying to the american public is wrong and there are consequences. Besides I think there are enough conservative democrats that would side with the republicans and acquit Bush.

Fourthly, If bush is impeached, it gives the republicans a chance to clean up their mess and regain power. This happened in CT, the governor was impeached for some sketchy shit he did, and the new Governor has unprecedented approval ratings and will easily win reelection in a dem state because he changed the "culture of corruption"

The republicans and democrats for that matter in congress have enough trouble of their own. Their approval ratings are even lower than Bush's. If impeachment were to occur and even if Bush was convicted and removed from office the "changed the culture of corruption" argument would go to the democrats.

The democrats would lose any support from the conservatives they would get during the mid-term election, but they never really had it anyway. Any conservative that would vote for a democrat would be just to send a message to the republicans and if the republicans lose they'll get that message loud and clear.

[Woodsy]

by conservative you must mean CHristian conservative, because this administration is about as fiscally conservative as FDR

[Monique]

Who's the author??

Orhan Pamuk

[KillingCokes]

If you care, vote. Get others tovote.

Yeah just think how much the Republicans care. They each voted a few time and got all their dead friends to vote to.

[MassLiberal]

I agree with most of what you are saying, but we should wait until after the election until we even begin to THINK about moving forward with any impeachment stuff. I peronally worry that it could potentially tear up the country politically and leave us with a much more difficult road forward as we try to fix the disasters that this administarion has left.

If the Democrats take control of either house of congress, I would argue that they immediately start to change the way business is done in Washington, by passing meaningful lobbying reform, start investigating means of fixing the atrocious healthcare situation in this country, and start to restore veterans benefits. After they start to do this, then, by all means, go after the president. But currently the attitude in this country is that politicians only care about 1up-ing each other and not about what is ailing the average american.

[mday]

Can we get some good candidates from both sides in 2008?

No.
Unless you're referring to the plot line of some science fiction/fantasy novel.

[Lurch]

I agree with most of what you are saying, but we should wait until after the election until we even begin to THINK about moving forward with any impeachment stuff. I peronally worry that it could potentially tear up the country politically and leave us with a much more difficult road forward as we try to fix the disasters that this administarion has left.

If the Democrats take control of either house of congress, I would argue that they immediately start to change the way business is done in Washington, by passing meaningful lobbying reform, start investigating means of fixing the atrocious healthcare situation in this country, and start to restore veterans benefits. After they start to do this, then, by all means, go after the president. But currently the attitude in this country is that politicians only care about 1up-ing each other and not about what is ailing the average american.

Restoring checks and balances should be high on the list too but it won't be. The fact that one political party can control all three branches giving the executive branch a free ticket to do as it pleases is total B.S.

[Grange]

I agree with most of what you are saying, but we should wait until after the election until we even begin to THINK about moving forward with any impeachment stuff. I peronally worry that it could potentially tear up the country politically and leave us with a much more difficult road forward as we try to fix the disasters that this administarion has left.

If the Democrats take control of either house of congress, I would argue that they immediately start to change the way business is done in Washington, by passing meaningful lobbying reform, start investigating means of fixing the atrocious healthcare situation in this country, and start to restore veterans benefits. After they start to do this, then, by all means, go after the president. But currently the attitude in this country is that politicians only care about 1up-ing each other and not about what is ailing the average american.

I agree that is what should happen and hope you're correct, but with the partisan bickering on both sides I'm not convinced that is going to happen.

I'd love to see impeachment considered, but there are more important thing to do.

[rideit]

And it would be totally worth it, to trash whats left of our country and its reputation in name of Vengence!!

Yes Payback!!!!!! You said it.

Yes, our current 'reputation' is truly beyond reproach....

[enlosandes]

I think this protester has a great idea!

[natty dread]

Going to bash the AP too Mr. G?
That protester's poster just about says it all.
Except rove would somehow spin the Bush blowjob as a matter of national security.

White House Declines to Counter Leak Claim

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 7, 2006

Filed at 2:27 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House on Friday declined to challenge assertions that President Bush authorized the leaks of intelligence information to counter administration critics on Iraq.

But Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, appeared to draw a distinction about Bush's oft-stated opposition to leaks.

''There is a difference between providing declassified information to the public when it's in the public interest and leaking classified information that involved sensitive national intelligence regarding our security,'' he said.

Court papers filed by the prosecutor in the CIA leak case against I. Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby said Bush authorized Libby to disclose information from a classified prewar intelligence report. The court papers say Libby's boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, advised him that the president had authorized Libby to leak the information to the press in striking back at administration critic Joseph Wilson.

McClellan volunteered that the administration declassified information from the intelligence report -- the National Intelligence Estimate -- and released it to the public on July 18, 2003. But he refused to say when the information was actually declassified.

On July 18, 2003, McClellan said that the information had been declassified that day. ''It was officially declassified today,'' he told reporters in a briefing in Dallas, Texas. At the White House on Friday, McClellan interpreted his own remarks to mean that the information had been officially released to the public.

The date could be significant because Libby discussed the information with a reporter 10 days earlier, on July 8 of that year.

On Thursday, disclosure of official authorization for Libby's leaks to reporters brought strong criticism from administration political foes, but little likelihood that their demands for explanations will be met.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., citing Bush's call two years ago to find the person who leaked the CIA identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, said the latest disclosures means the president needs to go no further than a mirror.

In his court filing, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald asserted that ''the president was unaware of the role'' that Libby ''had in fact played in disclosing'' Plame's CIA status. The prosecutor gave no such assurance, though, regarding Cheney.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said that ''in light of today's shocking revelation, President Bush must fully disclose his participation in the selective leaking of classified information. The American people must know the truth.''

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the president has the ''inherent authority to decide who should have classified information.'' The White House declined to comment, citing the ongoing criminal probe into the leak of Plame's identity.

In July 2003, Wilson's accusation that the Bush administration had twisted prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat ''was viewed in the office of vice president as a direct attack on the credibility of the vice president, and the president,'' Fitzgerald's court papers stated.

Part of the counterattack was a July 8, 2003, meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller at which Libby discussed the contents of a then-classified CIA report that seemed to undercut what Wilson was saying in public.

Separately, Libby said he understood he also was to tell Miller that prewar intelligence assessments had been that Iraq was ''vigorously trying to procure'' uranium, the prosecutor stated. In the run-up to the war, Cheney had insisted Iraq was trying to build a nuclear bomb.

The conclusion on uranium was contained in a National Intelligence Estimate, a consensus document of the U.S. intelligence community. Libby's statements came in grand jury testimony before he was charged with five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in the Plame probe.

Libby at first told the vice president that he could not have the July 8, 2003, conversation with Miller because of the classified nature of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, Fitzgerald said. Libby testified to the grand jury ''that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions'' of the NIE.

Libby testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then counsel to the vice president, ''whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document.''

Libby testified that he was specifically authorized to disclose the key judgments of the classified intelligence document because it was thought that its conclusions were ''fairly definitive'' against what Wilson had said and the vice president thought that it was ''very important'' for those key judgments to come out, the court papers stated.

After Wilson began attacking the administration, Cheney had a conversation with Libby, expressing concerns on whether a CIA-sponsored trip to the African nation of Niger by Wilson ''was legitimate or whether it was in effect a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife,'' Fitzgerald wrote. The suggestion that Plame sent her husband on the Africa trip has gotten widespread circulation among White House loyalists.

Wilson said he had concluded on his trip that it was highly doubtful Niger had sold uranium yellowcake to Iraq.

The prosecutor's court papers offer a glimpse inside the White House when the Justice Department launched a criminal investigation of the Plame leak in September 2003. Libby ''implored White House officials'' to issue a statement saying he had not been involved in revealing Plame's identity, and that when his initial efforts met with no success, he ''sought the assistance of the vice president in having his name cleared,'' the prosecutor stated.

The White House eventually said neither Libby nor Karl Rove had been involved in the leak. Rove remains under criminal investigation.

[kadeater]

I hear that no meaningful business will be conducted by Congress until they finish debating the Mormon religion, how to baptize children, and whether atheists are superior beings. Oh wait, that's us.

Ha Ha Ha. Good one!

[Woodsy]

[Tippster]

[natty dread]

So when dumbfuck shrub leaks classified info, it's by definition "in the public interest" and when other do it, they need to be fired. Unfuckingreal...

April 7, 2006

White House Tries to Quell Anger Over Leak Claim
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, April 7 — The White House tried today to quell the furor over the leaking of sensitive prewar intelligence on Iraq, as President Bush's spokesman insisted that the president had the authority to declassify and release information "in the public interest" and had never done so for political reasons.

The spokesman, Scott McClellan, said a decision was made to declassify and release some information to rebut "irresponsible and unfounded accusations" that the administration had manipulated or misused prewar intelligence to buttress its case for war.

"That was flat-out false," Mr. McClellan said.

Mr. McClellan was barraged at a news briefing by questions over assertions by I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, that President Bush authorized him, through Mr. Cheney, in July 2003 to disclose key parts of what was until then a classified prewar evaluation, or National Intelligence Estimate, on Iraq.

At the time, the Pentagon had hardly finished basking in the easy military victory when it was caught up in questions over the failure to find deadly unconventional weapons in Iraq — the main rationale for going to war.

One of the findings in the prewar intelligence data was that Saddam Hussein was probably seeking fuel for nuclear reactors.

Mr. McClellan said the Democrats who pounced on Mr. Libby's assertions that Mr. Bush had given him, through the vice president, the authority to talk to a reporter about some material in the intelligence estimate were "engaging in crass politics" in refusing to recognize the distinction between legitimate disclosure of sensitive information in the public interest and the irresponsible leaking of intelligence for political reasons.

Mr. Libby told a grand jury he discussed the intelligence estimate with Judith Miller, then with The New York Times, on July 8, 2003. Ten days later, the intelligence estimate was formally declassified, a move that Mr. McClellan said again and again was in the public interest and not politically motivated. Mr. McClellan deflected questions on what role, if any, Mr. Bush had in setting the parameters of Mr. Libby's discussion with Ms. Miller.

Meanwhile, Democrats continued to assail the administration.

"This is a serious allegation with national security consequences," Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, said today on the Senate floor. "It directly contradicts previous statements made by President Bush, it continues a pattern of misleading by this Bush White House, and it raises somber and troubling questions about the Bush administration's candor with the Congress and the public."

Mr. Reid said it was time for the president to say whether, in fact, he authorized the disclosure of the prewar intelligence, as Mr. Libby said he had. "He must tell the American people whether the Bush Oval Office is the place where the buck stops, or the leaks start," Mr. Reid said.

Mr. McClellan was in the somewhat odd position of not disputing that President Bush was involved in the disclosure of hitherto classified information, while describing any such disclosure as being in the public good.

Mr. McClellan, who noted that a president has the authority to declassify intelligence, said today that he was "not getting into confirming or denying things, because I'm not commenting at all on matters relating to an ongoing legal proceeding."

He was alluding to the trial of Mr. Libby, the vice president's former chief of staff, on charges that Mr. Libby committed perjury and engaged in obstruction of justice in connection with an inquiry over who unmasked Valerie Wilson, an undercover officer for the Central Intelligence Agency, in the summer of 2003.

The unmasking occurred shortly after Ms. Wilson's husband, the former diplomat Joseph Wilson, wrote in The New York Times that he doubted reports that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Niger.

Some Democrats accused the White House at the time of destroying Ms. Wilson's cover to retaliate against her husband, but the White House repeatedly denied the accusations.

Mr. McClellan was asked today whether the president's own words at the time ("If there's a leak out of this administration, I want to know who it is") and Mr. Libby's recent assertion, contained in a court filing, demonstrated inconsistency, at best.

Not at all, Mr. McClellan said. "Declassifying information and providing it to the public when it is in the public interest is one thing," he said. "But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious. And there is a distinction" — a distinction Democrats refuse to see, he said repeatedly.

[MassLiberal]

This is what happens with rich boy, found god, dry drunk, ne-er do well's, They rationalize away everything in their lives.

[Stu Gotz]

Not at all, Mr. McClellan said. "Declassifying information and providing it to the public when it is in the public interest is one thing," he said. "But leaking classified information that could compromise our national security is something that is very serious. And there is a distinction" — a distinction Democrats refuse to see, he said repeatedly.

McClellan is too choice. That first sentence should have read "Declassifying information and providing it to the public when it is in the White House's interest is one thing..."

The Dems need to get out the way of this train wreck. Bush has lost any mandate and his agenda is dead. The Neo-cons are being tossed to the curb by the old guard of the conservative movement and immigration and Iraq are wedge issues which Democrats have been lacking for a long time.

And this sounds horrible coming from a Democrat, but I would vote for Chuck Hagel right now in a Presidential election.

[nutcase]

I think everyone is getting way ahead of themselves. Supposedly Cheney told Libby Bush cleared it- but who the hell knows if that's true that Bush cleared it. I'm thinking the odds are pretty good that Cheney lied about that and if he did he's fucked cause there's no argument whatsoever that the VP has the authority to declassify anything unless he actually was the one to classify it which in this case he didn't.

[Greydon Clark]

Stu, you should work for the DNC... serious. If they can't take the House this year, they're hopeless.