Skip to main content

View Diary: Bush knew about Rove and Plame (213 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Before (none)
    He had his little talk in June of 2004.  
    •  OBSTRUCTION (4.00)
      If this little tidbit about Shrub's knowledge in 2003 can be proven, watch out for news to break that  Fitz is delivering a sealed report to the House.

      Certainly, in his 2005 interview with Bush, Fitzgerald would have asked if he knew if Rove was involved. If Bush didn't belly up the bar at that time and admit it, then Friztgerald would have him dead to rights on obstruction of just.  And, since Bush was there with Cheney during the interview, what is good for one is good for two.  Cheney would be dead in the water as well.  

      There may be not enough time to get a new VP or a new congress on this thing, and it could be time for President Hastert.   If this evidence is strong, the Republicans may realize that impeachment for both Bush and Cheney is likely and they need to move while they are in control, rather than face "President Pelosi."  

      So, they have the options to maintain control:
      a.  Impeach (or secure the resignations of Bush and Cheney now) and install Hastert as President; or
      b.  Get Cheney out now and run through the House the confirmation of the new VP of their selection (having a mini-presidential convention among the Republican caucus), to be followed by Bush's impeachment or resignation.

      •  IF (none)
        IF it can be proven is right. But the only way it could be proven is IF Karl confirms it. Which will NEVER happen. Karl may go down, be indicted, have to resign, but he would never take Bush with him. Never.

        If Karl is indicted, he'll resign and a motherlode of Republican cash will go to his legal defense fund. It will drag out for years and get lost in the right-wing noise machine. Media control today is nothing like the lack of it during Watergate. Move along, nothing to see here.

        "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!"

        by Kestrel on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 11:20:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I dissagree (none)
          Karl Rove would take Bush with him.
          The man has children and a wife.

          Rove would sell anyone out except his own blood.

          •  Dulce et decorum est pro Bush mori (none)
            You're dead wrong there.

            Rove would take disgrace, face prison, or die for Bush. That's how these people work. Loyalty to death and beyond.

            Bush would take care of Rove after prison with a job as a 'consultant' with Carlisle, or with some sort of pension for his wife and kid.

            Bush has a lot of very powerful people propping him up because his presidency allows them to continue enjoying that power and, of course, making money.

            Bush will not be allowed to fall. Anyone else is just a footsoldier and expendible. Even Rove.

        •  Why Would It Be Hard to Prove... (none)
          Theoretically, at least, someone leaked this information and I would imagine, assuming the source's cred, that they would have first-hand knowledge.  

          As far as we know, perhaps Rove's march up Calvary was attended by several people who surrounded Bush's throne.  So, if one of those people heard the conversations, they could certainly have hipped Fitzgerald to them - particularly if there were admissions against interest made by KKKarl - or - admissions against interest made by Chimpula.  I'm not saying it's likely - but those earlier conversations could mean a great deal to Fitzgerald, particularly if it shows that Chimpula was dissembling during his tete a tete with the feds in 2004.

          "We're all working for the Pharoah" - Richard Thompson

          by mayan on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 03:09:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  A few points (4.00)
        (1) Bush and Cheney did not appear together before Pat Fitzgerald and his investigators.  They were interviewed separately.  They did, however, do their little sock-puppet routine before the 9/11 Commission hearings.  But, in any event, there is proably enough that Fitzgerald has on Cheney without this bit of information.

        (2) Someone other than Bush and Rove leaked this to the Daily News, and it is possible that Fitzgerald has that information.  So, corroboration by either Rove or Bush may not be needed to show obstruction.

        (3) Allow the Repubs all on their own pick Cheney's replacement, the person who will become the next president?  No.  Absolutely not.  The notion of them doing this should be resisted from the start.  This individual would have to be confirmed by the Senate and the House, and the Dems have to be more than either a rubber-stamp or just consulted in order to make this work.

        At that point the Republicans would have done untold damage to the institutions of government.  They would have broken laws and broken the trust of the American public.  Any pick that they made all on their own would lack the air of legitimacy that the next leader would desperately need.  It is bad enough to be an unelected president [of course Bush was], without having any additional clouds over your tenure.

      •  I Wish (none)
        But I seriously doubt the Republican Senate would impeach Bush.  Does this make them rank hypocrites?  You bet your ass it does.
      •  Whoahh!!!! (none)
        won't that be a sight to see

        the universe is a good universe

        love is our ultimate destination

        real leadership is more than costume changes. --M.Dowd

        by ksingh on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 04:29:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site