Although, at the same time, the administration would be completely eviscerated, so it wouldn't really matter. If you think Bush looks like a lame duck now, imagine how ineffective he will be if his running mate is convicted of a crime.kat said:because if it leads to a conviction of Cheney (Hannah's in Cheney's office, no?) then...erm...RICE BECOMES VICE! *Grin*
Anyone in the Bush administration is going to suffer from association, so I fail to see why people would be pleased if Condi became VP (with hopes in 2008?). The Republican Party would do well to move away from the current image and return to their traditional platform--and solid candidates.Manchot said:Although, at the same time, the administration would be completely eviscerated, so it wouldn't really matter. If you think Bush looks like a lame duck now, imagine how ineffective he will be if his running mate is convicted of a crime.
Yeah, you're exactly right. If this were to happen, you can pretty much guarantee that the Republican candidate in 2008 will have as little to do with the Bush administration as possible.SOS2008 said:Anyone in the Bush administration is going to suffer from association, so I fail to see why people would be pleased if Condi became VP (with hopes in 2008?). The Republican Party would do well to move away from the current image and return to their traditional platform--and solid candidates.
The rumor is that Rove has been canceling speaking engagements. Who do you think has the most affect, Cheney or Rove?Manchot said:Although, at the same time, the administration would be completely eviscerated, so it wouldn't really matter. If you think Bush looks like a lame duck now, imagine how ineffective he will be if his running mate is convicted of a crime.
And in the begininng there were the neocon masters - former Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.faust9 said:The rats are turning on each other now:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Second_Cheney_aide_cooperating_in_leak_1019.html
Dick, you're next hehehehe
For more - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9756141/site/newsweek/Secrets, Evasions and Classified Reports
The CIA leak case isn’t just about whether top officials will be indicted. A larger issue is what Judith Miller’s evidence says about White House manipulation of the media.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET Oct. 19, 2005
Oct. 19, 2005 - The lengthy account by New York Times reporter Judy Miller about her grand jury testimony in the CIA leak case inadvertently provides a revealing window into how the Bush administration manipulated journalists about intelligence on Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.
----------
With no weapons of mass destruction having been found in Iraq and new questions being raised about the case for war, Libby assured Miller that day that the still-classified document, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), contained even stronger evidence that would support the White House’s conclusions about Iraq’s weapons programs, according to Miller’s account.
In fact, a declassified version of the NIE was publicly released just 10 days later, and it showed almost precisely the opposite. The NIE, it turned out, contained caveats and qualifiers that had never been publicly acknowledged by the administration prior to the invasion of Iraq. It also included key dissents by State Department intelligence analysts, Energy Department scientists and Air Force technical experts about some important aspects of the administration’s case.
The assertion that still-secret material would bolster the administration’s claims about Iraqi WMD was “certainly not accurate, it was not true,” says Jessica Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who coauthored a study last year, titled “A Tale of Two Intelligence Estimates,” about different versions of the NIE that were released. If Miller’s account is correct, Libby was “misrepresenting the intelligence” that was contained in the document, she said.
I think there is a big difference between Whitewater, a real estate deal, and exposing and endangering US intelligence assets.kat said:I have no clue why you're directing this drivel towards me in regards to my comment. I'm curious as to where this hearing is heading and how the law is being applied. Are we looking at something in the nature of espionage? strictly perjury? Is the law really applicable as it has been portrayed? etc. Is anything at all going to come of it..or has it just been much ado about nothing with a great big bill to the taxpayer?
If Rice is smart, and I am not so sure anymore, she will keep her distance and hope that her lies and role in the media distortion to sell an elective war will be forgotten. It appears she is not that bright, lately she has been somewhat vigorously re-framing the argument for the PNAC policy.kat said:because if it leads to a conviction of Cheney (Hannah's in Cheney's office, no?) then...erm...RICE BECOMES VICE! *Grin*
What...does whitewater...or anything during the clinton admin have to do with my question? Do you always create commentary to non-existent comments?...hello...?Skyhunter said:I think there is a big difference between Whitewater, a real estate deal, and exposing and endangering US intelligence assets.
What happens today..if turned around by the time the 2008 election year comes, will have little effect on the elections. Americans have somewhat short term memories and will vote according to how they feel at the time not how they felt a year earlier. Other then that, mentioning Condi was a bit of a jest as I know so many here hate the poor woman.SOS2008 said:Anyone in the Bush administration is going to suffer from association, so I fail to see why people would be pleased if Condi became VP (with hopes in 2008?).
The republicans would do well to close ranks and support the president or risk cutting their own throats.The Republican Party would do well to move away from the current image and return to their traditional platform--and solid candidates.
That would be desperate. If the Bush faction of the Republican Party still controls the party by 2008, the Republican Party wouldn't be worth belonging to, anyway.kat said:The republicans would do well to close ranks and support the president or risk cutting their own throats.
BobG said:That would be desperate. If the Bush faction of the Republican Party still controls the party by 2008, the Republican Party wouldn't be worth belonging to, anyway.
Are they really going to close around a 'political consultant' that was groomed by Watergate convictee Donald Segretti and Lee Atwater (the "Happy Hatchetman"), was arrested for his own criminal campaign offenses (the 1970 Dixon campaign, where Rove stole letterheads from the Democratic campaign office and invited the homeless to a Dixon fundraiser), and was even removed from Bush I's staff for attacking a key contributor Rove had a personal vendetta against?
Besides, a significant portion are beginning to close ranks. Only nine Republicans (Allard, Bond, Coburn, Cochran, Cornyn, Inhofe, Roberts, Sessions, and Stevens) voted against McCain's anti-torture amendment to the defense spending bill. Forty-five or about 82% of Senate Republicans closed ranks in spite of the threat of a Bush veto.
Politicians are politicians. They're pretty adept at moving away from a lost position to one with a little more strength. Most Republican Congressmen will be no different, especially with the threat of the 2006 elections looming.
What can Bush do ? He's re-hired all those folks that got fired for involvement in the Iran-Contra affair...faust9 said:The very best thing Bush can do is to admit he was wrong, and replace all of his ill-advisors. Reagan did this in 85-86 because of Iran-Contra.
Gokul43201 said:What can Bush do ? He's re-hired all those folks that got fired for involvement in the Iran-Contra affair...
I think we will see more and more signs of his mental instability as the the circle that has protected and manipulated him begins to crack under indictments etc.faust9 said:The very best thing Bush can do is to admit he was wrong, and replace all of his ill-advisors. Reagan did this in 85-86 because of Iran-Contra. Reagan also accepted responsibility for his failings either direct or indirect on various occasions. Bush will continue to weaken as long as he maintains the status quoe. He needs to mix things up. He needs to admit error. He won't though IMO so we'll see an increasingly weak president and a congress that is itself in flux (29% approval ratings for congress doesn't translate to relection for members).
You mentioned expensive tax-payer financed investigations that lead nowhere. I was pointing out that this one is about national security, not real estate/travel memos/infidelity ad nauseam.kat said:What...does whitewater...or anything during the clinton admin have to do with my question? Do you always create commentary to non-existent comments?...hello...?
Other members have already responded on this topic, but I agree about the short-term memory. As BobG noted, however, the 2006 congressional elections are just around the corner. The large number of scandals (which may even increase) and some that will be ongoing for some time will still be in the news as we close in on 2008.kat said:What happens today..if turned around by the time the 2008 election year comes, will have little effect on the elections. Americans have somewhat short term memories and will vote according to how they feel at the time not how they felt a year earlier. Other then that, mentioning Condi was a bit of a jest as I know so many here hate the poor woman.
The Republicans are cutting their own throats.kat said:The republicans would do well to close ranks and support the president or risk cutting their own throats.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9778097/Judith Miller’s boss says she misled newspaper
Editors should have found out earlier about leaked information, Times says
Associated Press
Updated: 4:16 a.m. ET Oct. 22, 2005
----------
Miller and Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, discussed Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, in three conversations in the weeks before the CIA officer’s status was outed by columnist Robert Novak.
----------
The criticism of the reporter came amid a sign that the prosecutor may be preparing indictments. Fitzgerald’s office set up a Web site containing the record of the broad investigative mandate handed to him by the Justice Department at the outset of his investigation two years ago.
Unlike some of his predecessors who operated under a law that has since expired, Fitzgerald does not need to write a final report, so he would not need a Web site for that purpose.
The criticism of Miller emerged amid new details about how she belatedly turned over notes of a June 23, 2003, conversation she had with Libby.
In her first grand jury appearance Sept. 30 after being freed from prison for refusing to testify, Miller did not mention the meeting.
She retrieved her notes about it only when prosecutors showed her White House visitor logs showing she had met with Libby ...in reviewing her notes, Miller discovered they indicated that Libby had given her information about Plame at that meeting. Fitzgerald then arranged for her to return to the grand jury to testify about it, the lawyers said.
Significant evidence:
The evidence of that meeting has become important to the investigation because it indicates that Libby was passing information to reporters about Plame well before her husband went public with accusations that the Bush administration had twisted pre-war intelligence on Iraq.
----------
Conflicts between presidential aides’ testimony and other evidence could result in criminal charges. The grand jury investigating the matter for the last two years is set to expire next Friday.
Gokul43201 said:What can Bush do ? He's re-hired all those folks that got fired for involvement in the Iran-Contra affair...
kat said:The republicans would do well to close ranks and support the president or risk cutting their own throats.
You forgot Rove. But wait...it was Rove who hired Bush !Ivan Seeking said:Cheney and Rummy go back to Watergate
I agree, if they violated no laws.Astronuc said:Interesting perspective - unfortunately, one has to now subscribe for access to the OP-ED pieces at the NY Times ($7.95/mo, $49.95/yr), but its probably worth it.
Hurricane Fitzgerald Approaches the White House
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: October 25, 2005
It was wrong for prosecutors to cook up borderline indictments during the Clinton administration, and it would be just as wrong now in the C.I.A. leak case.
I would agree with that - it certainly wrong to procecute someone if they did not violate the law.
The NY Times Lead Story.Skyhunter said:I agree, if they violated no laws.
Perjury and obstruction of justice violations of the law.
Obstruction of Justice in this case could mean that someone could be getting away with treason. According to George H. W. Bush, former head of the CIA, exposing a CIA operative constitutes treason.
Even though it was a witch hunt and a perjury trap, Clinton did, IMO violate the law. However, because it was purely political the whole country, and even the rest of the world paid a price. The whole affair should have waited until after his term was over. I hope that we have learned a lesson from that experience, but this is in no way similar to the Clinton investigation and impeachment.
Not much here yet, but for anyone interested, here is Fitzgerald's website.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html
The White House on Tuesday sidestepped questions about whether Vice President Dick Cheney passed on to his top aide the identity of a CIA officer central to a federal grand jury probe.
Notes in the hands of a federal prosecutor suggest that Cheney 's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, first heard of the CIA officer from Cheney himself, The New York Times reported in Tuesday's editions.
The Times said notes of a previously undisclosed June 12, 2003, conversation between Libby and Cheney appear to differ from Libby's grand jury testimony that he first heard of Valerie Plame from journalists.