Skip to main content

View Diary: Fitzgerald Has Proof That Bush and Cheney Were At Center of NIE-Plamegate Leaks (Poll)! (367 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Indicting a President (7+ / 0-)

    I don't think the law is straight forward as to whether or not a President can be indicted.  Hell, if he can only be charged through the impeachment process, that would suggest he could simply shoot any Congressman that would vote against him.  

    •  Late Summer (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cotterperson, joanneleon, HoundDog

      At this rate, I don't think Bush can last through the summer, let alone post mid term.

      •  I agree. I predict both Bush and Cheney will (5+ / 0-)

        be force to resign prior to November.

        I did actually predict this in Oct (check the archives)

        And raised the question of what happens if both Bush and Cheney go at the same time.

        I thought Bush and the GOP was going to be more clever and even suggested to them that this danger was why Cheney should resign first so Bush could chose his own replacement.

        Then Bush could resign and the new New President would get to chose.

        But if they Both go down together I believe it is not the Speaker of the House the first in line?

        Or is it the House Majority Leader?  I knew last fall.  dang.  

        Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

        by HoundDog on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 05:52:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They'll give war a chance first. (6+ / 0-)

          I would bet real money if that weren't basically betting on the deaths of thousands.

          •  I'm, concerned about this war maneuver you (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ybruti, va dare

            raise iconoclastic cat.

            This appeared yesterday on dailytimess quoting a "prominent Neocon with good WH links.
            _______

            Two B-2s could take out Iran’s nuclear assets  

            By Khalid Hasan

            WASHINGTON: Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions will be history by the time US President George W Bush leaves office, said a report published here.

            Veteran foreign correspondent Arnaud de Borchgrave, writing for the United Press International, quotes a “prominent neo-con” with good White House and Department of Defence contacts, as the source of the assertion. Asked what would the US do if sanctions did not make Iran turn away from its nuclear target, the source replied, “B-2s. Two of them could do the job in a single strike against multiple targets.”

            De Borchgrave writes in an amused vein, “So we looked up B-2s. The US Air Force only has 21 of them. Perhaps price had something to do with it. They came in at $2.2 billion a copy. But they can carry enough ordnance to make Iranians nostalgic for the Shah and his role as the free world’s gendarme in charge of the West’s oil supplies in the Gulf. These stealthy bombers have one major drawback in the Persian magic carpet mode. They can only attack 16 targets simultaneously; one short of the 17 underground nuclear facilities pinned red on Mossad’s target-rich PowerPoint presentations to the political leadership. Presumably, that’s why two B-2s would be required.”

            De Borchgrave points out that most of Iran’s secret nuclear installations are not only underground, but also close to population centres. “The first pictures of a B-2 raid would be dead women and children on al-Jazeera television newscasts, now as globally ubiquitous as CNN and FOX. The collateral damage would then rival Abu Ghraib’s devastating impact on America’s good name. The perceived American indifference over the loss of Arab lives would now be seen as spreading to another Muslim country,” he writes. The neo-con informant told the correspondent that there is “absolutely no way” Bush will accommodate to an Iranian nuke or two, the way he blinked first with North Korea. Bush uncompromising view of the Iranian nuclear danger and his determination to prevent it by force of two B-2s if necessary is “as solid as his resolve to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein,” he said.

            According to de Borchgrave, “This is also the British assessment of Bush’s intentions against Iran, a power whose president has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Today (April 3, 2006), senior British officials met with defence and intelligence chiefs to assess the consequences of air strikes against Iran - as well as European and global repercussions. Neo-cons are unfazed by the fact that Iran is an ancient civilisation of 70 million people with retaliatory assets that range from a choke-hold on the world’s most important oil route in the Strait of Hormuz, to an anti-US Shiite coalition in Iraq with two private militias, funded and armed by Iran, to terrorist groups throughout the Middle East that have a global reach. Iran is also a power that not only resisted an Iraqi invasion, but fought Saddam Hussein’s legions to a standstill in an eight-year-war of attrition that killed about 1 million soldiers on both sides. If, as Bush has indicated, US troops were still in Iraq in 2009 under the next president, Tehran, in retaliatory animus, would pull out all the stops to ensure a Vietnam-like send-off for remaining US forces in Iraq. For the time being, Tehran is delighted to keep US troops in Iraq as protective cover for Iran as it consolidates its influence throughout 60 percent of the country.”

            Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

            by HoundDog on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 09:10:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Size of China (0+ / 0-)

            Attacking Iran is not gonna be enough to conceal this sort of legal disaster.

            They gonna need to attack China or Russia jsut to keep the crowd occupied.

        •  speaker of the house (0+ / 0-)

          then secretary of state

        •  President Rice? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          boofdah

          That's my concern.  She is a top '08 contender for the GOP already.

          If Bush and Cheney were to resign prior to November, to avoid impeachment, the Presidency would pass to the Speaker of the House.  

          If Dennis Hastert took the job he would amount to a caretaker President, running out the rest of Bush's term.  It would be much more to the Republican advantage to have him step aside as well..."to spend more time with his family".  At which point Condoleeza Rice, as Secretary of State, becomes President, giving her the huge boost of incumbency going into the '08 election.

          If Bush/Cheney wait to resign until after November, they risk turning over the reins to President Pelosi, should the Dems happen to retake control of the House this fall.  

      •  Or another scenario (4+ / 0-)

        According to what we heard today, Libby said that Cheney OK'd the leak because Bush authorized it.

        I wouldn't be surprised if Bush denied this because: 1) he seems to lie quite a bit, or 2) Cheney never checked with Bush about authorizing anything.  

        From what we know so far about a range of things, both options are plausible.

        I wonder if Cheney will take the hit for this one regardless of the truth.  I think a Cheney resignation is entirely possible.  

    •  The Constitutional framers placed their trust (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Subterranean, tikkun, Swordsmith

      in the tri-chameral system of checks and balances.

      Because of the many cases of malichious prosecution used as a coercive threat in the English system, the founders did not want the President to be vulnerable to politically motivated hassling by prosecutors beholden to any particular party.

      The assumption is that if Bush were to take a gun and start shooting Congressman, the remaining Congresspeople of both parties would realize this was conduct unbecoming a president and in this case felony murder.

      Which would quality as "high crimes and misdemeanor" and a bipartison impeachment process would ensue.

      You have to remember, this was a different time.  And it would have probably been unimaginable to founders that our standards would slip so low as they have now, where a President Lying would not cause much of a stir.

      And be considered so normal that people would keep watching TV or doing whatever folks do on ordinary days.

      Helping to bring justice back to the White House, one indictment at a time.

      by HoundDog on Thu Apr 06, 2006 at 06:35:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He's ordered three gross of quail plus three (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Subterranean

      ... will position one of the head of each congressman and Deadye Dick will take care of the rest.

    •  Indicting a sitting president (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tikkun, GDoyle

      was blogged by Citizenspook last October:

      A Sitting President Can Be Indicted...
      And so can a sitting Vice President.

      I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I'll just quote the beginning and the end:

      For a change, I'm not going to give you my own analysis. Instead, I'm going to quote arch conservative lawyer, the legal sidekick of Rush Limbaugh, the infamous Mark Levin of the Landmark Legal Foundation, aka "The Great One". Let's have a look at what he has to say, and what Rush totally agreed with, regarding the indictment of a sitting President.  This comes from an official Landmark Legal brief:

      Read the whole thing (Citizenspook copies the brief on the blog).  Last paragraph:

      The possibility of impeachment does not immunize the president from criminal prosecution. He remains, at all times, a citizen of the United States who is answerable to the law.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site