Let the "OMG Liberal Witch Hunt!!!" Crying Begin!!Follow

OMG Liberal Witch Hunt!!!

Given how happy he looks in his mug shot and during interviews, I'd say you're right.

You know that feeling you get when someone makes a joke and you think you're the only one that doesn't get it? I have that feeling now.....

No you shut up.

Rest of the story is rehashing of same ole-same ole

You think it's going to be a photo finish too don't you?

This kind of ongoing investigation seems par for the course these days. Bush's administration has been very secretive from day one. It still happened. I fear the lesson will be to be yet more secretive in the future. I feel Bush is horrible. However, I want the US public to get what they voted for. (My representatives, the minority, should do their job - and if the rules allow, hinder as they can. We voted for them, too, and have tacitly approved the rules under which they opperate).

Sure, the guy may be guilty and the investigation should take place - but after the term in office is over.

Look at the worst case: let's say Rove did reveal the secret identity as political revenge. That would be one death. Even if releasing the name were illegal (and gbaji can tell you it may not be) - it can wait.

Lancet (on 29 Oct 2004) estimated that in about the first 18 months of the US invasion, about 100,000 Iraqis died as a result (e.g. deaths above the "normal" level in Sadam-era Iraq). 2000 US soldiers and an unknown number of non-military US citizens have died there.

Isn't going to war under false pretenses worse? This investigation, too, should wait until Bush leaves office. Guiding the war effort is too serious a task.

Our constitution guides us on this issue. If the president misbehaves (in specified ways) vote to impeach. If you don't have the votes, you don't get to trial.

My understanding is that Karl Rove is just an advisor. He could be in prison - he could still give Bush advice. Apparently since Feb 8 2005 he is "Assistant to the President, Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor" so perhaps some kind of "impeachment" like action is possible during term - but in all but the most grevous cases, I feel legal action should be delayed until after the end of term.

We risk paralyzing government in an endless sea of byzantine regulations. We made our bed, we should have to lie in it - for the full term - and then vote.

Sure. You and every other Pubbie media source or commentator there, Nostradamos. Way to take that brave step and reach way out there in your guesses.

Somehow I doubt Josh Lyman ever said "We will fu[/i]ck him. Do you hear me? We will fu[i]ck him. We will ruin him. Like no one has ever fu[i][/i]cked him." about the opposition's leadership.

Toby maybe. But not Josh.

You haven't watched that show enough. Josh has said nearly those identical words on serveral occasions. He's definately the attack dog on that show. Big time. Or do you not remember the episode when he drove a Democrat Congressman to switch parties because he couldn't help but play "extreme hardball" politics.


And Joph. That's a cop out and you know it.

We can debate endlessly whether or not a perjury or obstruction charge is legitimate or not. The fact is that it's *not* what the original investigation was formed to look into. That was my original point. An investigation looking into who outted Plame should find out who outted Plame. Simple as that. I then predicted that Fitz would not be able to find anyone in the administration to blame that outting on, so he'd hit them with obstruction and/or perjury charges instead.


Which, it appears, is *exactly* what is happening.


Valid or bogus is irrelevant. The fact is that he's failing to do what he was supposed to do, and is "settling" on some other charges to hit the administration with. I've already discussed at length why I feel he's doing that.


Answer this question. If he'd uncovered a clear leak of Plames identity within the White House, do you think he'd be bothering with other charges (unless they were directly involved in someone trying to hide that leak of course!)? No. He wouldn't. By any measure, this is what happens to most investigations of this type when they fail to find sufficient evidence of the crime they are investigating. They turn instead to examining the testimony to see if they can find inconsistencies on which to toss around lesser charges so that it looks like they accomplished something.


That's what makes the "bogus" in my mind. You can argue otherwise, but to me the point of an investigation is to find whether someone commited a specific crime, not cause people to commit more (or put them into positions where it can be made to look like they might have). If the only charges you can file in your investigation are for actions taken by people as a direct result of the investigation itself, then I have to question the value of the investigation in the first place.


It's "bogus" in exactly the way the charges of perjury against Clinton were bogus. It's not hard to craft questions in such a way as to make people in the political spotlight have to make a choice between revealing something that is not illegal but will be looked on poorly by the public and concealing that thing and risking a perjury charge. That's "bogus" in my mind. Isn't it in yours? You certainly thought so about Clinton. Why not in this case?

How about we see what happens and see what charges get handed out, and see just how bogus they are?

So you're admitting you were full of sh[i][/i]it when you said I claimed he wouldn't indict on perjury?

Yeah. Just checking

Keep cryin' though!

Am I the only one amused by the fact that Gbaji says:



Then goes on to explain for three paragraphs why he considers the charges "bogus"? Isn't that essentially spending three paragraphs on something utterly irrelevent, then?

Um. No. You said that if he indicted on a charge of perjury that it would be a valid charge because Fitzgerald is a honest man.


I said that I have no idea of his honesty, but that judging purely by past investigations of this type, and the current political climate, he'll indict on those types of charges whether they are warranted or not. He'll do it if he can find any legal justification for doing so because it gets him off the hook.


The problem here is that you are arguing this in such a way as to ensure you can't possibly be "wrong". Doubly funny since you made a big deal of calling me to the mat for not taking a position on the issue of Fitzgerald's integrity. Your arguement consists essentially of "If no crime was commited, Fitz will not hand out any indictments. But if someone commits perjury, he'll hand those down. And if he finds the person responsible for the Plame outting, he'll nail them as well". Note that the base assumption is that whatever Fitz does is "right" in all cases. You aren't taking a stance on what he'll do, but assuming that whatever he does is the right thing.


It's an irrelevant position to take becuase regardless of the outcome, you can always point to it and declare yourself to be right. "See! He didn't indict anyone. I told you he would only indict if someone deserved it", or "See! He indicted someone. That means that someone must have deserved the indictment...".


See how that's circular? Any result seems to support your position. But the fact is that the only position you've taken is that whatever Fitz does must be correct. That's a lot of faith to put in a single man, and I don't happen to share it.