the republican congress has set the standard for what is an impeachable offense...now if lieing about a consensual act between adults is impeachable..what is lieing to the american people about a security breach...bush had to knoe rove lied..had to
Posted by dennis at July 18, 2005 08:37 AMOr the President of the United States lied to the American people and should resign and be censured by Congress.
Or, instead of censure, how about sending him on patrol in Iraq? That would get us closer to a just result.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 18, 2005 08:37 AMdems are in a win win...the scum are in a lose lose....been a while since that happened
Posted by dennis at July 18, 2005 08:39 AMThe Preznit has a new, NEW! operational standard on TreasonGate, as of today.
NPR played his comment that "anyone who is guilty of disclosing classified information will be gone." (or something like that.)
This means that Turd Blossom can stick around, until he is convicted! Frog March? Indictments? A strong war time Preznit like Dubya doesn't care about no steenkin' indictments -- it convictions that matter, baby!
Posted by ck at July 18, 2005 09:23 AMinstead of censure, how about sending him on patrol in Iraq? That would get us closer to a just result.
Or maybe hand him over to the Iraqis, to be tried as a war criminal? He could do his time in Abu Ghraib -- or maybe share a cell with Saddam. They could swap stories on how much easier it is to be a dictator, when you don't have to let anyone else run for office, let alone receive some of the votes in an election.
Posted by ck at July 18, 2005 09:32 AMI pick option C, they all lied. Karl Rove lied to McClellan but not Bush, and then Bush lied to McClellan and the rest of us.
the bar at the white house now is that you will be fired only after you have committed a crime..wow
Posted by dennis at July 18, 2005 10:16 AMNo, Dennis--at this White House, you only get fired if you've been convicted of a crime, not if you've committed one. No one in the White House has been convicted of drunk driving or drug possession either, but we know--and they know--that both apply to at least one "senior official" (or should this be "Junior"? :-))
Posted by buck turgidson at July 18, 2005 10:52 AMI've always thought those "not involved with this" comments were the ones we should have been using to nail them to the wall a long time ago.
As we discussed yesterday,the comments that came in the middle between the first and the tenth seem to imply that the administration knew exactly what the truth was and stepped towards a more nuanced defense before stepping back and settling on what had always worked so well for them--the bald faced lie:
On Oct. 6, 2003, McClellan couched it a bit differently, allowing for the possibility that somebody in the administration might have talked to a reporter about Plame's involvement.
"There is a difference between setting the record straight and doing something to punish someone for speaking out," he said at the time.
A day later, McClellan said, "It's perfectly acceptable when someone makes statements that aren't based on the facts to correct that information. And this White House will vigorously work to set the record straight, when facts — ell, when information is presented that is not based on the facts."
McClellan also issued the blanket denial that day, saying he had talked with Rove, Libby and Abrams and "they assured me that they were not involved in this."
Posted by American Dreamer at July 18, 2005 11:26 AM