I agree with you that impeachment is the most appropriate path (actually, I think both Bush and Cheney and few others should be impeached, removed from office, and then shipped off to the Hague), but why do you think it has to/or would stop with censure? Is there some reason why an investigation has to be closed once a censure vote passes, or do you just think it puts an emotional period at the end of a statement and will be used to say our poor officials have suffered enough?

Republic congresscritter enablers are the first to say Censure is meaningless political theatre. Then they’ll vote ’present’ or ’in opposition’ of cloture on the resolution. Unfortunetly, the gambit works. They get to sound like they’re in opposition of Bush’s malfeasence but they keep the fundraising benefits and other reelection support from the Republic party.

Their game is to speak prevarication to power – bluff, and then fold in silent complicity.

Nonetheless, if Censure would be an effective trial balloon for impeachment (and not create political support in opposition of articles of impeachment) then give it a go. I just dont see how. It’s a half measure and I doubt it would increase support for impeachment.

I love Swopa. But I am astounded that he misses this fact: in a post arguing against getting lost in the minutiae, he presents the issue as one of Bush â€coddling criminals,†and not as one of Bush using his pardon power to hide his own (and Cheney’s) involvement in a crime. It was not Libby who came up with the idea of leaking Valerie Wilson’s identity to Judy Miller, it was Cheney, and he did so with the authorization of Bush.

That is exactly the point. Bush’s use of his clemency powers to commute Libby’s sentence BUT NOT PARDON HIM is a clear circumstantial case of OBSTRCUTION OF JUSTICE. I think we have probable cause.

It’s too bad Congress and not Judge Walton or a jury of peers would be making the determination.

Ms. Wheel – This is unfairly off-thread – it actually aims at something which has occurred to me of relevance to your post 070704 titled: July 04, 2007 â€Is this the Evidence that Libby Knew Plame Was Covert?†I wasn’t sure what to make of those parts of your post which report on the relevant Q&A BTW Good Sir Fitz & the Dragon Addington. It occurred that it might be possible you reported strictly off your FDL live blog or that plus notes you & the other pups made while there, so I reviewed the trial record Waas & Jeff published – but found NO PART OF THIS Q & A reported there – of which I make nothing more than that they both missed it & you nailed it, which as news is just like dog bites man [both of them are limited by gender, which of course they can’t help]. But now I have this problem – I wish to comment on that Q & A – particularly the â€A†part & to a lesser extent the â€Q†part as well – but I don’t know to what extent it is safe to treat what you’ve reported as coming out of their mouths as verbatim. It might very well be so & on this point I would accept your assurance as sufficient – but if what is there simply reports1 on the GIST then that doesn’t assist my quest as my approach necessitates it be verbatim. FWIW what I’m thinking of addresses the question which the theme of your post, albeit AOT. If you think this too obscure for publication in reader commentary here I could send you more on my thinking via email. I’ve got a window of about 5 or so hours right now so whatever you think please let me know soon if able & so choose [I you aren’t or choose otherwise no problem – like all others here of pure heart – therefore excepting the resident trolls – I serve at your pleasure].

Mostly unrelated yet vital breaking news: The resident herd boss where I bunk turns a magical age tomorrow – in consequence of which is to receive a gift of a gorgeous black lab youngster the breeder named – no kidding – â€Marcie†– tho it appears more likely that came about from being one of a brood sired by a certain â€Marki Markâ€. Spelling errors in pets’ names are subject to correction on re-registration, of course.

I am with you on impeachment, the censure seems a true waste of time and money. I am glad to see discussion, but saddened that the amercican people are so passively waiting for congress to tell us what it’s going to do. I do wish the american people would tell congress. I know most of us here have done just that.

There must have 15 different pundits saying â€we don’t like what Bush has done but there is nothing that can be done about it.†It made me sick. Yes, just take your whips america.

We need an investigation. We need controversy. We need the discussion and we need to see people arguing and fighting it out.

Okay…now back to writing letters. We just need to keep pushing for the honest discussion about this behavior of lawlessness. Lawlessness. Lawlessness. Our president lawless.

President Bush and VP Cheney Lawless.

Censure is a waste of time only if it is the end game. As a step towards impeachment it offers some advantages. It forces Republicans to take a stand (something most of them in Congress are avoiding). It keeps the issue front and center in the news. It keeps the pressure on the Administration, putting them on the defensive.

There is no reason that a censure resolution takes anything away from beginning impeachment proceedings.

I wrote Rep Lynch, Sen Kerry, Sen Kennedy, House Speaker Pelosi and Rep Wexler and made the case for Impeachment not Censure.

Wexler dosen’t accept email from out of district constituents but you can email him from his re-elction web site. Pelosi publishes her email address for ALL to contact her: [email protected]

A bibliographical note the Mason-Madison exchange is recorded in original in the third volume of Elliot, pages 496-498.

The whole of the Constitutional debates are online: J. Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

â€What if his wife was actually the target all along?â€

Then, why wait until Wilson’s op-ed to destroy Brewster Jennings? If Brewster Jennings was the original target, Cheney of all people didn’t need an op-ed in the New York Times for cover.

William Ockham – The only way a censure will fly is if it IS the endgame; and that is a big no go as far as I am concerned. Wexler needs to be geared up on real accountability, not a spitball to punish and elephant.

Maybe it’s both. Maybe the Kristoff article and CNN appearance caused Cheney to put 2 and 2 together–Valerie Plame, the thorn in his side at the CIA, who was studying WMD in Iraq as well as Iran, and Joe Wilson, the guy who had been to Niger and then talked to Kristoff.

Adding 2 and 2, Cheney might have been afraid they had shared what they knew with each other, and that through his contacts in the media and his credibility as a former ambassador, Joe would be able to expose the lies about WMD that the Admin had used to sell the war by stifling the CIA. Wilson’s op-ed thus would have compounded Chenehy’s fears, and is why he went ballistic.

But not just the lies about the WMD–we couldn’t have anyone getting too close to those Niger â€documents†and investigating where they came from and how they kept being fed to the CIA . . . .

So Cheney did what he did. He got people to smear Wilson, rolled up Valerie’s operation and deflected everyone’s attention onto Joe and Valerie and off of himself and the lies. Almost worked, too.

GulfCoastPirate

Because there’s no evidence to support it. I think it may also have been an attempt to get back at CIA for badmouthing Cheney and Libby–that appears in Pincus articles twice, and certainly forms the background for ignoring CIA’s efforts to respond more moderately.

I don’t rule it out. But I try, very hard, only to speculate based on the evidence I’ve got at hand. And I’ve got none to support that.

I cannot plumb the depth of the details anywhere near the level of EW or Jeff and Waas, but I tend to agree with EW’s reponse to GulfCoastPirate. I think it is in many ways a compelling argument and makes sense, but it is not past the speculativ/hypothetical category yet. Our strength is in sticking to the confirmed or, at a minmum, the prima facially founded. This is true even when we know something in our gut, but don’t have it locked down. This effort should be treated like a trial with standards for admissiability to the discussion and argument. Not necessarily the same strict standards, but analogous thereto; that way we occupy the high ground and don’t waste time and energy covering duplicity.

I think it depends on what we mean by effective. If we mean that effective means we get rid of them, or that we somehow control their behavior, then impeachment will not be effective and agree with assessments that perhaps nothing can be done to control them.

However, to me effective means consequences and the possibility, the best chance that the american people will learn things they need to know to make choices about the future.

We cannot control them, but we can tell the truth and trust the american people and it’s process. Our constitution requires impeachment. It’s the law.

The only valid response to lawlessness is the law. Let’s use it. They may get around it, they may turn it on it’s head like the mob did for many years, but eventually, it works. The truth comes out. The process may be different, we don’t know what it will bring for sure, but truth is the solution, and turning our backs on what is happening or ignoring it, or hoping they will just go away, or be voted off the planet…is not going to happen. They have too much invested. The only solution is to pick up the good fight, be willing to suffer the consequences, just like that battered woman who choses to go up against that which she cannot control. The solution is not submission. It is using the laws the way they stand. Unfortunately, many a woman lost her life and continues to lose her life in that battle. It doesn’t mean that women should stop fighting domestic violence, it means that we all have to face the truth, that the cost is high, the risk is real. It’s so damn american to think that democracy is risk free or easy. Sorry folks.

The path less traveled, is often the path of truth.

Katie, when you say â€If we mean that effective means we get rid of them, or that we somehow control their behavior, then impeachment will not be effective and agree with assessments that perhaps nothing can be done to control them.†This suggests we already know the outcome. We don’t. Period.

Get the evidence before the public and I would bet quite a lot that Bush and Cheney WILL be removed from office. Even Republicans bow to to public pressure, when it builds sufficiently.

I am astounded that he misses this fact: in a post arguing against getting lost in the minutiae, he presents the issue as one of Bush â€coddling criminals,†and not as one of Bush using his pardon power to hide his own (and Cheney’s) involvement in a crime.

I think this is a perfect example of getting lost in the minutiae. The broad moral dividing line between right and wrong here is that if someone in the President’s administration breaks the law, the President shouldn’t intervene in the legal process to protect that person.

Yes, it’s worse if reason for the intervention is to prevent the President or VP/shadow President from being implicated, but it’s still wrong even if that isn’t the reason. (Besides, if the President does intervene to prevent one of his top aides from going to jail, most people will intuit that the President is probably implicated even if that isn’t spelled out explicitly.)

Exactly right EW, especially the bit about conservatives getting on board and angry. I grew up in the rural Midwest, not exactly a liberal hotbed (with some notable exceptions like Madison, WI), and I can guarantee you that once they understand that this is Bush doing his best to keep himself and Cheney out of legal jeopardy they will be all in favor of impeachment. There is a deep and abiding streak in rural America about obeying the law and that everyone, including politicians are treated equally under the law. Even if this isn’t actually true (i.e., the big rich lawyers, get the big rich people off the hook), they still believe it SHOULD be true and they are not gonna sit still for a President declaring the rules don’t apply to him and his buddies.

EW, you are absolutely correct to hammer on the obstruction of justice theme. It’s what ties Bush’s commutation of Libby to his father’s pardon of Caspar Weinberger: they protected the people in their own administration who could testify about their own crimes.

It’s what makes Bush 43’s and Bush 41’s actions on an entirely different and more corrupt plane than Clinton’s pardon of Marc Rich (or anyone else).

And, pace Swopa, it’s not at all a question of getting mired in detail. It’s the big picture: obstruction of justice.

The sock puppet Jodi is far more insightful.