Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak
Sun Oct 2, 2005 18:01
64.140.158.93
Source to Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/02.html#a5192
Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal?
Judd posted this: "Near the end of a round table discussion on ABC�s This Week, George Stephanopoulos dropped this bomb:
Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it�s a manageable one for the White House especially if we don�t know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.
Video-WMP
Video-QT
George said it so calmly. Clearly he knows what the ramifications are to this tidbit of information.
Think Progress has more...
9:35:20 AM Comments (96) permalink9:35:20 AM
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/This-Week-Bush-Cheney-Plame-10-02-05.mov
===============
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/02/bush-directly-involved/
Source to Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal
Near the end of a round table discussion on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos dropped this bomb:
Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it’s a manageable one for the White House especially if we don’t know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.
This would explain why Bush spent more than an hour answering questions from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. It would also fundamentally change the dynamics of the scandal. President Bush could no longer claim he was merely a bystander who wants to “get to the bottom of it.” As Stephanopoulos notes, if Bush played a direct role it could make this scandal completely unmanageable.
Filed under: Ethics
Posted by Judd at 10:31 am
Permalink | Comment (228)
228 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/02/bush-directly-involved/trackback /
1.
Yes!
Comment by Toto, Torturer of Trolls — October 2, 2005 @ 10:40 am
2.
again… they lose
Comment by ZUG — October 2, 2005 @ 10:45 am
3.
I’m shocked, shocked I say, to learn that Bush and Cheney may have lied.
Comment by melior in France — October 2, 2005 @ 10:48 am
4.
[…] Boom! The Other Shoe Bomb Dropped JT Davis posted this on October 2, 2005 at 10:50 am | In | Source to Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal […]
Pingback by Grouchy’s Liberaltopia » Boom! The Other Shoe Bomb Dropped — October 2, 2005 @ 10:50 am
5.
I’m afraid to hope. I’ve been afraid to hope since the Bush gang stole the White House.
Comment by David — October 2, 2005 @ 10:51 am
6.
Hello, President Hastert!
Comment by Morgan — October 2, 2005 @ 10:53 am
7.
[…] President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal Source to Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal […]
Pingback by The Political Puzzle » President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal — October 2, 2005 @ 10:53 am
8.
This does my progressive heart good.
Comment by So There — October 2, 2005 @ 10:53 am
9.
Mr. President, your pants are on fire.
Comment by mdhatter — October 2, 2005 @ 10:54 am
10.
Ted Rall has the perfect toon to summarize the comments so far: http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall /
Comment by Mr. Pink — October 2, 2005 @ 10:55 am
11.
Champagne is going to uncorked very soon!!!!! WHIG, Bush, and Cheney are going to be indicted for conspiracy.
Comment by Drdemocrat — October 2, 2005 @ 10:59 am
12.
http://tinyurl.com/8ghl8
http://revolution-nine.spreadshirt.com
Where Republicans tread, innocent people end up dead.
Comment by buckfush — October 2, 2005 @ 11:01 am
13.
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”
Hm, Chief Justice John Roberts. Interesting…
Comment by not_gonna_happen — October 2, 2005 @ 11:09 am
14.
Impeachment, baby!
Comment by Frederick — October 2, 2005 @ 11:10 am
15.
Wow, this certainly is big! Like I’ve said before, I didn’t think our government could any less incompetent, but now we hear that even Bush is involved in this mess.
I was worried about Bush pardoning DeLay and Frist, but with this new revelation I’m beginning to relax a bit on that.
If Bush isn’t actually impeached for this, but punished in some other way, I sure hope Bush can’t pardon himself! As Bruce Gottlieb stated in his Slate.com article:
Can the president really pardon himself? No one knows the answer. The Constitution says that the president “shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” This sentence, like many in the Constitution, can reasonably be interpreted in several ways. And since no court has ruled on this issue–because no president has ever tried to pardon himself–it remains an open question.”
However, a search on About.com gives a different conclusion:
“The “constitutional challenges” would come primarily from the power of U.S. presidents to grant pardons under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states in part, “and he [the president] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
In other words, under this Article, a sitting president can grant him or herself a pardon. The Founding Fathers intended this in order to prevent the Executive Branch (the president) from coming under the direct control and influence of the Judiciary Branch (the courts).”
I guess I’m jumping way ahead here when I still have no idea how Bush will even be punished, let aloe IF he’ll punished, or even if he’ll be charged with anything.
Comment by Daniel — October 2, 2005 @ 11:12 am
16.
http://tinyurl.com/8ghl8
http://revolution-nine.spreadshirt.com
Where Republicans tread, innocent people end up dead.
.
Comment by buckfush — October 2, 2005 @ 11:15 am
17.
Bush is going to be busy investigating his Administration for both the recent failures of FEMA and who is responsible for leaking Plame’s identity. But, as usual, he made it easy on himself: All he has to do is look in the mirror.
I’m waiting for the Republican chorus to start singing that we don’t need no stinking independent special prosecutor to inspect Bush and Cheney’s involvement — why, who could do a better job than Alberto ‘VO-5′ Gonzales, the nation’s top cop?
The cliche is that grand juries will indict a ham sandwich; but what about someone with the intellect of a ham sandwich? (On white toast, of course.)
DeLay, Rove, Scooter, and now Dick and Dubya, too. Karmic payback is fierce mutha– (Shut your mouth!) But I’m talkin’ about America gettin’ shafted!
Comment by RS Janes — October 2, 2005 @ 11:18 am
18.
Would a Republican congress impeach Bush and Cheney if indicted? Or if convicted? You have to wonder.
Comment by cynicalgirl — October 2, 2005 @ 11:32 am
19.
With all these people so willing to out a CIA agent, you’d think the CIA would want to make an example of them. C’mon CIA, I know you’re reading this. Leak some info of your own. Let them know who’s boss.
Comment by Kezaro — October 2, 2005 @ 11:32 am
20.
This is a very serious allegation, but if it is true, then Bush and Cheney are toast. But President Hastert? Um, I don’t even know what he stands for or how he’d show himself as being different from Dubya and Dick.
Comment by BlastFurnace — October 2, 2005 @ 11:32 am
21.
I think it has been very clear for a long time that both Bush and Cheney are ‘hands on’ managers when it comes to their top aides. Libby and Rove report DIRECTLY to Cheney and Bush respectfully. I would seriously doubt Libby and/or Rove would act on their own with such a serious matter. We all know why they would want to discredit Wilson and we also know that this team of politicians are probably ‘the masters’ of dirty tricks politics. The fact that Bush and Cheney would be involved does not surprise this American at all. Soon the trashing of Fitzgerald will begin by the spin machine.
Comment by Dan — October 2, 2005 @ 11:34 am
22.
Bush’s top guy and Cheney’s top guy are in the hotseat… is it any surprise the fire’s rising? With Rove and Libby under investigation, how could Puppet-Master and Charley McCarthy NOT be involved?
I wish that argument would fly in a legal setting. If indictments do come down (or go up), it’s going to be a very long and twisty road. And of course neither Bush nor Cheney will ever EVER feel any actual effects of the legal system.
But for now, here’s hoping “If The Shoe” Fitz can bring this baby in for a landing.
Comment by B. Batson — October 2, 2005 @ 11:34 am
23.
So, what. There is NO WAY this congress will impeach the president. Bush can rob the bank at high noon and the cops guarding it would not stop him or arrest him. They then would swear he never was there.
That is the USA today. Clinton get worked over for whitewater and a blow job, and Bush can steal, start an illegal war and authorize torture and the killing of civilian and journalists and the condamination of Iraq with depleteted uranium and what happends - NOTHING, NOTHING and 40% of the public thinks he is doing a GOOD job.
This country is ethically and morally bankrupt.
Comment by francis — October 2, 2005 @ 11:34 am
24.
“Wow, this certainly is big! Like I’ve said before, I didn’t think our government could any less incompetent, but now we hear that even Bush is involved in this mess.”
This is not incompetence. It is dishonesty, treason and corruption to the highest degree. They should have both been impeached for crimes against humanity when they first took the offices they stole.
Comment by Leslie — October 2, 2005 @ 11:35 am
25.
Bush didn’t testify under oath, did he? Did Cheney testify at all? As happy as I would be for this to be true and to come out in public, I just can’t pin my hopes on it ever happening. These two guys are more teflon coated than Teflon Tom.
Comment by Maggie — October 2, 2005 @ 11:36 am
26.
It will indeed be interesting to see how the GOP reacts if Bush and/or Cheney are indicted for perjury. I heard that in the past they considered lying to a grand jusy an impeechable offence.
Comment by smiley — October 2, 2005 @ 11:38 am
27.
Where’s the blue dress? This is just a political witchhunt. It was Nagin’s fault.
Comment by NTodd — October 2, 2005 @ 11:39 am
28.
Has anybody considered the name being floated for the next Justice is Bush’s personal lawyer. If she goes thru then anything pertaining to Bush that comes before the court she will have to recuse herself from leaving a 4-4 tie.
Comment by joe — October 2, 2005 @ 11:41 am
29.
I agree, Dan, that they both may be involved: while Bush is kept out of the loop (allegedly)on so many things, he DOES remain in very close consult with Rove, who is, after all, the man who directs him. Cheney is likely the one in control in his office, but Libby is without a doubt, in close, daily contact. I also expect a trashing of Fitzgerald, (Republican notwithstanding) but that possibility might explain in part Fitz’ very tight seal on the case.
Comment by Marie — October 2, 2005 @ 11:44 am
30.
how perfectly delightful it would be if bush got his tit caught in fitzgerald’s wringer along with the rest of them… even if only rove goes down, i would still party like it’s 1999…
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2005/10/karl-rove-satans-doppelganger.html
Comment by profmarcus — October 2, 2005 @ 11:51 am
31.
its been obvious from the start that chimpy and cheney are deeply involved in the whole mess…
Comment by headxray — October 2, 2005 @ 11:52 am
32.
Teflon is easily destroyed by rough surfaces.
Comment by Boadicea — October 2, 2005 @ 11:53 am
33.
Don’t get your hopes up. They’ll snake out of it just like everything else. Let’s concentrate on making sure we don’t get another RepubliCon administration in 2008. And don’t even start thinking that 50.00001% of the people in this country will vote for Hilary because they won’t.
Comment by Mike — October 2, 2005 @ 11:54 am
34.
I do not need impeachment yet but indictments for WHIG, Bush, and Cheney. Indictments means that the Bush administration will be SEVERLY politically damaged thus the Democrats could take over both the House and the Senate in 2006. Then in 2006 we should go for impeachment.
Comment by Drdemocrat — October 2, 2005 @ 11:55 am
35.
Too soon to make anything out of it all. Don’t count on anyone high up doing time or resigning. Remember Iran Contra?
Comment by DUDACKATTACK!!! — October 2, 2005 @ 11:57 am
36.
It is sure fun to dream, but as we ALL know deep down, this will go NOWHERE.
If you thought taking out Delay brought out the smearing, God could not bear the same wrath the RepubliCANTS will bring on Fitzy. Nobody brings down both the Pres and Vice Pres. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Fitzy suddenly “disappear” altogether should he irritate too many higher ups…
Comment by Punchy — October 2, 2005 @ 11:58 am
37.
President Pelosi 2007?
Comment by IdahoMoe — October 2, 2005 @ 11:58 am
38.
The courts wont let impeachment to happen ?.will it?
Comment by Romelee — October 2, 2005 @ 11:59 am
39.
No matter what criminal activities Bush and his cronies have done, don’t expect anyone to be held accountable.
They run everything, now, including the Supreme Court.
Comment by Mark Webb — October 2, 2005 @ 12:01 pm
40.
don’t know if anyone will see this, but does anyone know if there have ever been any provisions made, i.e. in the Constitution or subsequent laws, that would enable a ’special election’? i know that parliamentary systems allow ‘no confidence’ votes, but if this thing knocks out both bush & cheney, hastert becomes president, appoints a vp (subject to senate confirmation? yes? no?)and they would just serve out the rest of the term?
And hastert has his own Turkish/Armenian problems, doesn’t he?
Comment by mooshter — October 2, 2005 @ 12:01 pm
41.
RIGHT, remember iran contra.
these evil bastards should have been impeached long ago
aint gonna happen though
cuz this time the media has ZERO balls and
nobody cares
and nobody cares that the elections are rigged so good luck getting a new congress that actually gives a damn
Comment by motherinzion — October 2, 2005 @ 12:01 pm
42.
Jesus, anybody with a half a damn brain knew it was Bush and Cheney from the git-go.
And does anybody doubt for a minute that Bush’s initial reaction at seeing the Aby Ghraib pictures was to chuckle?
Damn, it is like nobody has
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/02.html#a5192
Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal?
Judd posted this: "Near the end of a round table discussion on ABC�s This Week, George Stephanopoulos dropped this bomb:
Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it�s a manageable one for the White House especially if we don�t know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.
Video-WMP
Video-QT
George said it so calmly. Clearly he knows what the ramifications are to this tidbit of information.
Think Progress has more...
9:35:20 AM Comments (96) permalink9:35:20 AM
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/This-Week-Bush-Cheney-Plame-10-02-05.mov
===============
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/02/bush-directly-involved/
Source to Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal
Near the end of a round table discussion on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos dropped this bomb:
Definitely a political problem but I wonder, George Will, do you think it’s a manageable one for the White House especially if we don’t know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or have indictments but if he is able to show as a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions.
This would explain why Bush spent more than an hour answering questions from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. It would also fundamentally change the dynamics of the scandal. President Bush could no longer claim he was merely a bystander who wants to “get to the bottom of it.” As Stephanopoulos notes, if Bush played a direct role it could make this scandal completely unmanageable.
Filed under: Ethics
Posted by Judd at 10:31 am
Permalink | Comment (228)
228 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/02/bush-directly-involved/trackback /
1.
Yes!
Comment by Toto, Torturer of Trolls — October 2, 2005 @ 10:40 am
2.
again… they lose
Comment by ZUG — October 2, 2005 @ 10:45 am
3.
I’m shocked, shocked I say, to learn that Bush and Cheney may have lied.
Comment by melior in France — October 2, 2005 @ 10:48 am
4.
[…] Boom! The Other Shoe Bomb Dropped JT Davis posted this on October 2, 2005 at 10:50 am | In | Source to Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal […]
Pingback by Grouchy’s Liberaltopia » Boom! The Other Shoe Bomb Dropped — October 2, 2005 @ 10:50 am
5.
I’m afraid to hope. I’ve been afraid to hope since the Bush gang stole the White House.
Comment by David — October 2, 2005 @ 10:51 am
6.
Hello, President Hastert!
Comment by Morgan — October 2, 2005 @ 10:53 am
7.
[…] President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal Source to Stephanopoulos: President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal […]
Pingback by The Political Puzzle » President Bush Directly Involved In Leak Scandal — October 2, 2005 @ 10:53 am
8.
This does my progressive heart good.
Comment by So There — October 2, 2005 @ 10:53 am
9.
Mr. President, your pants are on fire.
Comment by mdhatter — October 2, 2005 @ 10:54 am
10.
Ted Rall has the perfect toon to summarize the comments so far: http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall /
Comment by Mr. Pink — October 2, 2005 @ 10:55 am
11.
Champagne is going to uncorked very soon!!!!! WHIG, Bush, and Cheney are going to be indicted for conspiracy.
Comment by Drdemocrat — October 2, 2005 @ 10:59 am
12.
http://tinyurl.com/8ghl8
http://revolution-nine.spreadshirt.com
Where Republicans tread, innocent people end up dead.
Comment by buckfush — October 2, 2005 @ 11:01 am
13.
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”
Hm, Chief Justice John Roberts. Interesting…
Comment by not_gonna_happen — October 2, 2005 @ 11:09 am
14.
Impeachment, baby!
Comment by Frederick — October 2, 2005 @ 11:10 am
15.
Wow, this certainly is big! Like I’ve said before, I didn’t think our government could any less incompetent, but now we hear that even Bush is involved in this mess.
I was worried about Bush pardoning DeLay and Frist, but with this new revelation I’m beginning to relax a bit on that.
If Bush isn’t actually impeached for this, but punished in some other way, I sure hope Bush can’t pardon himself! As Bruce Gottlieb stated in his Slate.com article:
Can the president really pardon himself? No one knows the answer. The Constitution says that the president “shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” This sentence, like many in the Constitution, can reasonably be interpreted in several ways. And since no court has ruled on this issue–because no president has ever tried to pardon himself–it remains an open question.”
However, a search on About.com gives a different conclusion:
“The “constitutional challenges” would come primarily from the power of U.S. presidents to grant pardons under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states in part, “and he [the president] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
In other words, under this Article, a sitting president can grant him or herself a pardon. The Founding Fathers intended this in order to prevent the Executive Branch (the president) from coming under the direct control and influence of the Judiciary Branch (the courts).”
I guess I’m jumping way ahead here when I still have no idea how Bush will even be punished, let aloe IF he’ll punished, or even if he’ll be charged with anything.
Comment by Daniel — October 2, 2005 @ 11:12 am
16.
http://tinyurl.com/8ghl8
http://revolution-nine.spreadshirt.com
Where Republicans tread, innocent people end up dead.
.
Comment by buckfush — October 2, 2005 @ 11:15 am
17.
Bush is going to be busy investigating his Administration for both the recent failures of FEMA and who is responsible for leaking Plame’s identity. But, as usual, he made it easy on himself: All he has to do is look in the mirror.
I’m waiting for the Republican chorus to start singing that we don’t need no stinking independent special prosecutor to inspect Bush and Cheney’s involvement — why, who could do a better job than Alberto ‘VO-5′ Gonzales, the nation’s top cop?
The cliche is that grand juries will indict a ham sandwich; but what about someone with the intellect of a ham sandwich? (On white toast, of course.)
DeLay, Rove, Scooter, and now Dick and Dubya, too. Karmic payback is fierce mutha– (Shut your mouth!) But I’m talkin’ about America gettin’ shafted!
Comment by RS Janes — October 2, 2005 @ 11:18 am
18.
Would a Republican congress impeach Bush and Cheney if indicted? Or if convicted? You have to wonder.
Comment by cynicalgirl — October 2, 2005 @ 11:32 am
19.
With all these people so willing to out a CIA agent, you’d think the CIA would want to make an example of them. C’mon CIA, I know you’re reading this. Leak some info of your own. Let them know who’s boss.
Comment by Kezaro — October 2, 2005 @ 11:32 am
20.
This is a very serious allegation, but if it is true, then Bush and Cheney are toast. But President Hastert? Um, I don’t even know what he stands for or how he’d show himself as being different from Dubya and Dick.
Comment by BlastFurnace — October 2, 2005 @ 11:32 am
21.
I think it has been very clear for a long time that both Bush and Cheney are ‘hands on’ managers when it comes to their top aides. Libby and Rove report DIRECTLY to Cheney and Bush respectfully. I would seriously doubt Libby and/or Rove would act on their own with such a serious matter. We all know why they would want to discredit Wilson and we also know that this team of politicians are probably ‘the masters’ of dirty tricks politics. The fact that Bush and Cheney would be involved does not surprise this American at all. Soon the trashing of Fitzgerald will begin by the spin machine.
Comment by Dan — October 2, 2005 @ 11:34 am
22.
Bush’s top guy and Cheney’s top guy are in the hotseat… is it any surprise the fire’s rising? With Rove and Libby under investigation, how could Puppet-Master and Charley McCarthy NOT be involved?
I wish that argument would fly in a legal setting. If indictments do come down (or go up), it’s going to be a very long and twisty road. And of course neither Bush nor Cheney will ever EVER feel any actual effects of the legal system.
But for now, here’s hoping “If The Shoe” Fitz can bring this baby in for a landing.
Comment by B. Batson — October 2, 2005 @ 11:34 am
23.
So, what. There is NO WAY this congress will impeach the president. Bush can rob the bank at high noon and the cops guarding it would not stop him or arrest him. They then would swear he never was there.
That is the USA today. Clinton get worked over for whitewater and a blow job, and Bush can steal, start an illegal war and authorize torture and the killing of civilian and journalists and the condamination of Iraq with depleteted uranium and what happends - NOTHING, NOTHING and 40% of the public thinks he is doing a GOOD job.
This country is ethically and morally bankrupt.
Comment by francis — October 2, 2005 @ 11:34 am
24.
“Wow, this certainly is big! Like I’ve said before, I didn’t think our government could any less incompetent, but now we hear that even Bush is involved in this mess.”
This is not incompetence. It is dishonesty, treason and corruption to the highest degree. They should have both been impeached for crimes against humanity when they first took the offices they stole.
Comment by Leslie — October 2, 2005 @ 11:35 am
25.
Bush didn’t testify under oath, did he? Did Cheney testify at all? As happy as I would be for this to be true and to come out in public, I just can’t pin my hopes on it ever happening. These two guys are more teflon coated than Teflon Tom.
Comment by Maggie — October 2, 2005 @ 11:36 am
26.
It will indeed be interesting to see how the GOP reacts if Bush and/or Cheney are indicted for perjury. I heard that in the past they considered lying to a grand jusy an impeechable offence.
Comment by smiley — October 2, 2005 @ 11:38 am
27.
Where’s the blue dress? This is just a political witchhunt. It was Nagin’s fault.
Comment by NTodd — October 2, 2005 @ 11:39 am
28.
Has anybody considered the name being floated for the next Justice is Bush’s personal lawyer. If she goes thru then anything pertaining to Bush that comes before the court she will have to recuse herself from leaving a 4-4 tie.
Comment by joe — October 2, 2005 @ 11:41 am
29.
I agree, Dan, that they both may be involved: while Bush is kept out of the loop (allegedly)on so many things, he DOES remain in very close consult with Rove, who is, after all, the man who directs him. Cheney is likely the one in control in his office, but Libby is without a doubt, in close, daily contact. I also expect a trashing of Fitzgerald, (Republican notwithstanding) but that possibility might explain in part Fitz’ very tight seal on the case.
Comment by Marie — October 2, 2005 @ 11:44 am
30.
how perfectly delightful it would be if bush got his tit caught in fitzgerald’s wringer along with the rest of them… even if only rove goes down, i would still party like it’s 1999…
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2005/10/karl-rove-satans-doppelganger.html
Comment by profmarcus — October 2, 2005 @ 11:51 am
31.
its been obvious from the start that chimpy and cheney are deeply involved in the whole mess…
Comment by headxray — October 2, 2005 @ 11:52 am
32.
Teflon is easily destroyed by rough surfaces.
Comment by Boadicea — October 2, 2005 @ 11:53 am
33.
Don’t get your hopes up. They’ll snake out of it just like everything else. Let’s concentrate on making sure we don’t get another RepubliCon administration in 2008. And don’t even start thinking that 50.00001% of the people in this country will vote for Hilary because they won’t.
Comment by Mike — October 2, 2005 @ 11:54 am
34.
I do not need impeachment yet but indictments for WHIG, Bush, and Cheney. Indictments means that the Bush administration will be SEVERLY politically damaged thus the Democrats could take over both the House and the Senate in 2006. Then in 2006 we should go for impeachment.
Comment by Drdemocrat — October 2, 2005 @ 11:55 am
35.
Too soon to make anything out of it all. Don’t count on anyone high up doing time or resigning. Remember Iran Contra?
Comment by DUDACKATTACK!!! — October 2, 2005 @ 11:57 am
36.
It is sure fun to dream, but as we ALL know deep down, this will go NOWHERE.
If you thought taking out Delay brought out the smearing, God could not bear the same wrath the RepubliCANTS will bring on Fitzy. Nobody brings down both the Pres and Vice Pres. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Fitzy suddenly “disappear” altogether should he irritate too many higher ups…
Comment by Punchy — October 2, 2005 @ 11:58 am
37.
President Pelosi 2007?
Comment by IdahoMoe — October 2, 2005 @ 11:58 am
38.
The courts wont let impeachment to happen ?.will it?
Comment by Romelee — October 2, 2005 @ 11:59 am
39.
No matter what criminal activities Bush and his cronies have done, don’t expect anyone to be held accountable.
They run everything, now, including the Supreme Court.
Comment by Mark Webb — October 2, 2005 @ 12:01 pm
40.
don’t know if anyone will see this, but does anyone know if there have ever been any provisions made, i.e. in the Constitution or subsequent laws, that would enable a ’special election’? i know that parliamentary systems allow ‘no confidence’ votes, but if this thing knocks out both bush & cheney, hastert becomes president, appoints a vp (subject to senate confirmation? yes? no?)and they would just serve out the rest of the term?
And hastert has his own Turkish/Armenian problems, doesn’t he?
Comment by mooshter — October 2, 2005 @ 12:01 pm
41.
RIGHT, remember iran contra.
these evil bastards should have been impeached long ago
aint gonna happen though
cuz this time the media has ZERO balls and
nobody cares
and nobody cares that the elections are rigged so good luck getting a new congress that actually gives a damn
Comment by motherinzion — October 2, 2005 @ 12:01 pm
42.
Jesus, anybody with a half a damn brain knew it was Bush and Cheney from the git-go.
And does anybody doubt for a minute that Bush’s initial reaction at seeing the Aby Ghraib pictures was to chuckle?
Damn, it is like nobody has
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
