On CNN's
Situation Room Monday, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) backtracked on his use of the I-word - impeachment.
Specter first on Gore's speech and then on to impeachment:
It was a political speech. Al Gore is carrying on the 2000 campaign, pure and simple. I was asked, what are the possible remedies? And I was very careful to delineate all of the theoretical remedies. And, if I had left out impeachment, people would have said, Arlen Specter soft on President Bush. That's a theoretical possibility.
And I quickly said, it doesn't apply in this case. There's no doubt that the president acted in good faith. He may be wrong, but he's not subject to impeachment.
Inside Specter says Bush is a good guy, no problem. All is well. A monarchy is not so bad when he's on your side.
Oh, to be above the law. It must be a rush for George. Much like a line of coke in many ways, I suspect. To get up in the morning and know that the rules have been re-written for you since the beginning of your presidency. Indeed, they allowed your very presidency to occur in the first place.
Specter again:
But I don't think that there's any call here for a special prosecutor. There's -- there's no showing of mens rea, or criminal intent, or bad faith on the part of the president. We just had a special prosecutor, a very high-profile one in Fitzgerald. And we ended up a "New York Times" reporter in jail for 85 days. And we still don't know what that investigation was all about.
Unwarranted criticisms of Fitzgerald aside - why bypass Congress when he could have simply asked for the authority? Amendments were made to FISA in the Patriot Act, why not work with Congress instead acting unilaterally? Further, when briefing the select group of Congresspersons they were forbidden to consult personal counsel or discuss the program with anyone at all. When objections were made, both in Congress and within intelligence circles, they all seem to have been entirely ignored.
Specter, it should come as no suprise, is slumping away from any responsibility as an independent representative.
He continued:
I would be very leery about looking for any special prosecutor. But look here, Wolf. We have congressional oversight. I'm chairman of the Judiciary Committee. And we are going to have a hearing. And that's the constitutional way to go about it, without getting involved in special prosecutors, who haven't worked very well in recent times.
Oh, smashing. No conflict of interest there. No need for an independent investigation when you might not like the outcome. Specter, rather, seems to believe we live in a nation of men rather than laws, which is quite a dangerous notion for the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold. Specter says he has an open mind going into the hearings, but you and I both know he'll conduct a rather well-meaning, accommodating set of hearings and then politically whitewash any compromising conclusions.
Who will watch the watchers? A special prosecutor is the only hope. One that I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for.