 |
|
Add to My Group
|
February 14, 2007 at 14:49:01
The Libby trial makes impeachment easy, and obligatory by Carol Wolman Page 1 of 1 page(s) 
|
|
|
The testimony by multiple reporters over the past two weeks has made it clear that Cheney was the prime mover in the outing of Valerie Plame. Cheney was obsessed with discrediting Plame's husband Joe Wilson, who had dared to call Bush a liar, publicly, in a New York Times op-ed piece. Cheney orchestrated multiple leaks about Plame's identity as a CIA agent, from several White House personnel to various key reporters.
Bush must have been aware of it, since his press secretary Richard Armitage was one of the leakers. Libby's defense seems to be that Rove was the main leaker, and that, he, Libby, is being scapegoated to protect Rove and Bush, whose "brain" Rove is. Thus Bush is implicated as well as Cheney.
The prosecutor in the Libby trial, the intrepid Patrick Fitzgerald, has already done the time-consuming investigative work that the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by John Conyers, would otherwise have to undertake. All that remains for the House to do, is to decide whether the outing of an undercover agent for political purposes is an impeachable offense.
Although Bush and Cheney are not themselves on trial right now, and a sitting president cannot be prosecuted in a regular court of law, surely the published testimony in the Libby trial is compelling evidence that Cheney conspired to out a CIA agent, and Bush was complicit. This is a crime, and in context, a heinous crime. Here's the context:
Bush and Cheney had just used manufactured evidence to persuade the American public that there was reason to launch a pre-emptive war against Iraq. They were "fixing the facts around the policy" as the famous Downing Street memo put it. (A recent Pentagon study confirms this.)
Wilson called them on it, and to spite and discredit him, they claimed it was his CIA wife who sent him to Niger to check out a supposed purchase of uranium by Iraq, and that his findings, therefore, were suspect. The logic of this escapes me; it's much more likely that the motive for outing Plame was pure vengeance.
Plame ran a network of 70 or so operatives all around the world, who took great risks to track WMDs on the international black market, and to make sure that terrorists didn't get hold of them. How many of the agents were killed after Plame's identity was made public is classified information, but no doubt some were. The entire network was exposed and rendered ineffectual.
Dear reader, you may remember that Dubya's claim to fame is that he's fighting a war on terror. His excuse for invading Iraq was that Saddam had WMDs. Keeping WMDs from terrorists should have been his main objective. Instead, he allows his veep, his press secy, and various other key staff people to leak this top secret information to the press. Terrorists everywhere must have been overjoyed! Without the Plame network, obtaining WMDs got a lot easier!
If terrorists are the enemy, the outing of Plame gave them aid and comfort. This is the definition of treason.- giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The operatives who were killed as a result of publishing her identity were in fact murdered by the leakers and their masters. In other words, Bush and Cheney are probably guilty of treason and murder.
The outing of Plame makes Watergate look like a Sunday School picnic. The investigation has been done, the crime is obvious, the evidence is public. Hearings by the House Judiciary Committee shouldn't take more than a week. It only takes a simple majority to impeach. With a clear Democratic majority in the House, impeachment should be a foregone conclusion.
It's true that a 2/3 majority in the Senate is needed to convict Bush and Cheney and remove them from office, and the Democrats have only a one-vote margin. The severity of the crimes, however, once put into the context of formal impeachment, would carry such great weight that many Republicans would join to get rid of the malefactors.
All the excuses- that impeachment is too slow and takes too much energy from "more important" issues, fall by the wayside now. Fitzpatrick has done the work, the crimes are obvious.
What is Congress waiting for! If they fail to move now, no matter what sort of deal Pelosi made last year, aren't they complicit? Where is the bill of impeachment that will start the process?
In the name of the Prince of Peace, Carol Wolman
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
impeach Bush and Cheney
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
| 7 comments |
|
Easy/obligatory but --ain't gonna happen at this juncture.
Unless and until Americans can find a way to prevent yet another neocon driven pre-emptive war,this time target- Iran, within the next month or so, there is little chance for such resolve from out Congress. My guts have been in knots thinking about a casually mentioned comment on cable news a week or so ago. Talking head said "even if Libby were convicted, punishment will be delayed or never at all...due to the fully expected inevitable Bush-pardon. " Sorry, not much cheer to send...yet we continue pushing our state legislature to move ahead on New Mexican hope to put a resolution for same on our state Lege agenda this Friday. No longer the "land of enchantment" rather the land of impeachment...let's hope! by madams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Wednesday, Feb 14, 2007 at 6:21:32 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Well its a process madams
But it DEFINATELY can happen. If Americans WANT it too. Impeaching Bush is the perfect way of preventing pre-emptive war and of sending a message to all neo-cons or neo-nazis or neo-anything that when it comes to upholding the Constitution and the laws of the United States and there treaties they had better be very very careful not to incur the righteous wrath of 'We the People'. Rumsfeld has felt the will of the People, Cheney and Bush are feeling it now whether they are showing it or not. But Bush should be the focus precisely because he is the commander in chief and because they tells the others that the People will go after the President if he wrongs them so lesser beings like defense secretaries and VEEPs cannot expect a Presidential pardon from a person who may not be there to grant it. But to paraphrase Kennedy, each American needs to ask themselves, what am I willing to do for my country at "this juncture"? What are you prepared to do madams? A letter to an editor, a conversation with a friend, an encouragement to John Convers? What? by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Feb 15, 2007 at 3:03:30 PM (0+)
|
|
I agree. Even if the Dems TRIED to impeach but lacked the
votes to push it through, it would be far better than diddling around with non-binding ineffectual wrist-slaps. It would at least focus the national attention on the question of whether or not Bush is a criminal, & the case for this is as strong as such a case could be. If, out of fear that they don't have the votes, the Dems don't even try making the case that the Bush regime is a gang of treasonous criminals, they are in effect resigning themselves to the sidelines. They're giving their tacit consent to whatever happens, & propping Bush up by refusing to play their strongest cards against him. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Wednesday, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:59:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Why don't the Dems go for it?
Only 10% of the Congress is new. The rest have all been there at least two years, most much longer. They've had plenty of time to be bought, corrupted, blackmailed, and otherwise made part of the Bush crime syndicate. Pelosi made a deal with Bush last May- that's when she declared impeachment is off the table. This was not a campaign strategy, as she said at the time, because she's sticking to it- despite the unanticipated Democratic landslide, despite the new crimes Bush is committing, despite his escalation in Iraq, despite the Libby trial revelations. The deal includes the whole Democratic party- not one has broken ranks, although Conyers has stuck a toe out. How this deal was bought or compelled by the Bush people we can only guess, but it seems to be ironclad. Six weeks into the new Congress, the best we get is a wishy-washy, nonbinding resolution against Bush's "surge". The egregiousness of the Plame outing should arouse the public to demand impeachment hearings. The impeachment movement needs to grow fast, to head off the impending attack on Iran, which could well lead to nuclear Armageddon, since Iran and Russia have a mutual defense pact. Let's spread the word! Peace, Carol by Carol Wolman (230 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 15, 2007 at 12:23:57 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Carol if Bush goes Cheney goes
This Pelosi would have to know. Pelosi can't politically lead the charge on impeachment because she'd be effectively leading a charge to become President without being elected - and that isn't something she should try to do of her own accord. What she should do is uphold her own promises and oath to We the People. What is off the table today, We the People can put on the table tomorrow or next week. The table BELONGS not to Bush or Pelosi but to We the People. by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Feb 15, 2007 at 3:33:24 PM (0+)
|
|
Accuracy
Please note that Richard Armitage is not, and never has been, GW Bush's press secretary. Rather, he worked under Colin Powell in the state department, and was an open dissenter to the Bush adminisstration's rush to invade Iraq. Even though the press honeymoon is over, I think it is very important for those of us who deplore this administration to maintain our credibility--particularly those of us running for public office! My own thought is that impeachment, while obviously indicated, would be no cake walk, and is becoming increasingly irrelevant as the blessed day in January 2009 approaches. Obviously, Cheney and Bush must both successfully be removed from office. The Democratic majority in the Senate is slim. Do you think Lieberman would go along with it? I seriously doubt any actual Republicans would. by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 409 comments [85 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 15, 2007 at 10:43:31 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Re: accuracy
I was talking about Ari Fleischer, who also was a leaker. He WAS press secretary at the time. As far as a Senate vote- these things have their own momentum. Not being guaranteed of the outcome is no reason not to start the process. Impeachment could be QUICK in the House- the evidence is already public. Peace, Carol by Carol Wolman (230 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Feb 15, 2007 at 11:01:19 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
