Skip to main content

View Diary: Cheney Lied to Prosecutors; Fitz Suspects Emails Destroyed; Gonzales Withholds Emails (Poll) (269 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  why would he lie so blatantly (4.00)
    why would he lie so blatantly?

    surely he knew that other people's testimonies would contradict him - and paperwork, too.

    he blatantly lied, and took a dive so they could get re-elected. if this story had broke in 2003, kerry would be prez now.

    •  Or hubris.. (4.00)
      he just thought it'd never come out - that they could stonewall and claim executive priviledge, national security, or whatever, and the obligatory sending out of the attack dogs from the right to spin-spin-spin the story away (and smear anyone who gets in their way).  

      I hope it's true - I hope the next time we hear from Fitzgerald it's with a Cheney indictment for obstruction of justice, conspiracy, perjury, and anything else he can think of.  And if he could take Gonzales down too, all the better.  Just thinking it could come down that way made my day!

    •  They plan to invoke Nat'l Security (4.00)
      They'll claim that the emails can't be turned over for National Secutiry reasons and executive privelege, as they have already done.  The only way to get around that is if Fitz already has copies of the missing emails.  
      And who is going to make them cooperate?  We've already seen what wusses the so-called moderate Republicans are on the Senate Intelligence committee.  I figure any oversight committee the Republicans control (that means all of them) are prone to similar pressure and arm-breaking by the Executive branch.  

      -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

      by goldberry on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 01:20:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No one was supposed to testify (none)
      What my tin-foil hat won't let them eavesdrop on:

      See, when you place everyone involved in a position to control the investigation, no one can do anything. Is the attorney general gonna have you arrested if you don't comply with a subpoena? Is he going to send in the justice department to confiscate the e-mails that AGAG has had disappeared? Is Justice Roberts going to rule in Fitzgerald's favor when he tries to make you testify? Is Roberts going to rule that the president's chief-of-staff isn't covered by executive privelege?

      They simply ran out of time with their shuffling. Perhaps it wasn't just a distracting tactic when Meirs withdrew on the exact same day Libby was indicted. Perhaps the reasons for appointing her had become moot.

      "So let me get this straight- they believe in Social Darwinism, but not um, actual Darwinism??"

      by bonobo on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 08:12:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Lying so blatantly (none)
      boggles the mind, doesn't it?

      Hubris? Maybe.  But it's starting to resemble megalomania more and more everyday.

      On Bush: "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." --(borrowed from) Churchill

      by joanneleon on Thu Feb 16, 2006 at 10:16:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You might be right that it was a calculated risk (none)
      to get re-elected at any cost.  And then let the chips fall where they may in the hope that their Rovian spin machine, intimidation, and national security would let them get away with it.

      I believe they were true believers that they were doing what the country really needed into terms of "true" patriotism.  Damn the torpedoes, liberals, and the 1(*^&%$ "constitution that is just a piece of paper" (What was Bush's exact quote), let's do what we know is right (Neocon vision)

      And if they didn't get away with it, let some of these old warriors take the hit for the team, and maybe get pardoned.

      But given the force fields of collective and individual narcissism of this crowed I don't even think any of them except Rove thought it out that far in advance.  

      They do not seem to be in even the top "three quartile" as far as senior executive strategic acumen in my experience.  (I mean they are collective at least in the bottom 1/4, except for Rove.)

      And I do not believe Rove burdened down the momentum of the day with lots strategic hypotheticals of long term consequences.

      Bush is a "let's do it" so I can get back on the golf course kind of executives.  Let the troops work out the details.  "Get er done."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site