Hold Dick Cheney to Account

The conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to the FBI confirms the suspicions that millions of Americans have had for years about the lawlessness of this administration.

And the focus of the Libby trial on a particular aspect of that lawlessness -- the determination of the administration to punish critics of the manipulation of intelligence to make the "case" for invading and occupying Iraq – means that these convictions go to the heart of the current debates about how to end that war and about how to hold those responsible for it to account.

Make no mistake about what has happened: An essential member of the Bush-Cheney administration has been convicted of attempting to undermine a Federal Bureau of Investigation inquiry into scheming by the vice president and others to punish former Ambassador Joe Wilson for revealing that statements made before the start of the war by the president and others were in conflict with intelligence that had been provided to the White House.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, got it right when he said: "It's about time someone in the Bush Administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics."

Reid got it right, as well, when he said, "(The Libby) trial revealed deeper truths about Vice President Cheney's role in this sordid affair. Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct."

But Reid and other Congressional leaders have their own responsibilities now.

The Libby trial revealed stunning details about Cheney's direct and aggressive involvement to attack Wilson. In the course of the trial, it was revealed by Catherine J. Martin, who served as the vice president's top press aide in 2003, that Cheney dictated detailed "talking points" for Libby, and others on how they could impugn Wilson's credibility

The vice president ordered press aides to closely track press coverage of Wilson and ordered Libby to begin making behind-the-scenes contacts with reporters covering the story. So engaged with the "get-Wilson" initiative was Cheney that, while he and Libby were traveling on Air Force Two, the vice president personally prepared materials to be slipped to a Time magazine reporter who was on the story.

That level of involvement by the vice president in an effort to discredit a former ambassador of the United States who was participating legally and appropriately in a national debate about how the war in Iraq began begs the question: Will Cheney be held to account?

"This case doesn't end with Mr. Libby's conviction," says Congressman Maurice Hinchey, D-New York, the House's most consistent and aggressive critic of Cheney. "Testimony in the Libby trial made it even more clear that Vice President Cheney played a major role in the outing of Mrs. Wilson's identity. It is time to remove the cloud hanging over Vice President Cheney and the White House that Special Counsel (Patrick) Fitzgerald so aptly described in his closing remarks and expose all of the lies that led to the outing of Mrs. Wilson's identity."

Hinchey says that, "The question which has always needed to be addressed is why Mrs. Wilson's CIA position was revealed to the press. The answer is that the administration was attempting to undermine and weaken the credibility of her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, who publicly disclosed his findings that Iraq never sought uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapon. Ambassador Wilson publicly proved that the administration's case for war -- that Iraq had an active weapons of mass destruction program -- was false. He demonstrated that multiple senior administration officials, including President Bush himself, deliberately made false and misleading statements to win congressional approval and public support for an invasion of Iraq."

Hinchey's right. Fitzgerald, who says there is a cloud hanging over the office of the vice president, should pursue the matter of Cheney's wrongdoing. But so, too, should Congress, where House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chair Henry Waxman, D-California, is reportedly talking with House leaders about dusting off his 2005 proposal that issues related to the scandal should be the subject of congressional hearings. "It's ridiculous that Congress should stay out of all of this and not hold hearings," Waxman said at the time.

It is even more ridiculous to think that, with Libby now convicted, and with so much new evidence of Cheney's inappropriate activity now in the public domain, the House and Senate would fail to open hearings.

At issue is the most fundamental of all questions in a republic: Can a member of the executive branch of the federal government, perhaps the dominant member, deliberately deceive the legislative branch, then set out to use to punish Americans who expose those lies, and get away with it?

That is not just a legal question for prosecutor Fitzgerald, it is a Constitutional question for Congress.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (34)

1. Why...that sounds like something along the lines of an...

   Impeachment Hearing?!?!?!!?

   Now, first off...what did Fitzgerald say about the investigation yesterday, Mr Nichols?

   Second, what did Nancy Pelosi say (and has YET to refute) about "impeachment" and "a table"?

   Third, will Maurice Hinchey get thrown aside if he backs off, like you did John Conyers when HE stopped supporting impeachment?

   Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 3:45pm

2. The article is quite right. A Waxman investigation of the VP's activity would be good. He's already doing a good job investigating the billions of dollars that have gone missing in Iraq after all of the no-bid contracts got approved.

   Waxman heads a government operations committee. The use of government resources to attack Wilson and silence his exposure of government lies sounds like an appropriate subject for a government operation committee to address.

   Posted by RLawrence at 03/07/2007 @ 3:56pm

3. A related note on the trail to the VP: Scott McClellan was on Larry King, I think it was, and said that in his opinion from a communications perspective the administration had better start talking about this and stop hiding behind the lawyer-line of "no comment, ongoing investigation."

   In other words, the continued stonewalling is making the Veep look very bad and they should Ix-Nay on the Ilence-Say. Wonder if they'll heed Scott's advice.

   Posted by RLawrence at 03/07/2007 @ 4:02pm

4. That's all well and done, but when will the main stream media also take part in searching for the truth.

   When will they start to "accuse" the administration with questions that demand truthful answers and not simple rote-like ramblings from Bush during his press conferences. And they should also DEMAND to be allowed follow-up questions and not let Bush dismiss them as "servants".

   Yes, Congress should search out the Truth but so should the Press Corps. One should serve the other --- and not the Pelosi impeachment phobias, the Judy Miller likes, or the Tim Russert "easy" interviewers.

   Strength, Courage, and Wisdom.......find it, understand it,use it.

   Posted by bohdan yuri at 03/07/2007 @ 4:10pm

5. That's all well and done, but when will the main stream media also take part in searching for the truth.

   When will they start to "accuse" the administration with questions that demand truthful answers and not simple rote-like ramblings from Bush during his press conferences? And they should also DEMAND to be allowed follow-up questions and not let Bush dismiss them as "servants".

   Yes, Congress should search out the Truth but so should the Press Corps. One should serve the other --- and not the Pelosi impeachment phobias, the Judy Miller likes, or the Tim Russert "easy" interviewers.

   Strength, Courage, and Wisdom.......find it, understand it, use it.

   Posted by bohdan yuri at 03/07/2007 @ 4:11pm

6. it bears repeating.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 03/07/2007 @ 4:32pm

7. Congressional Democrats can attempt to embarrass Repubs. by holding hearings. But they need to be careful--there is as much to lose as to gain by such proceedings. Beware the salt-n-pepper Marine in the starched Class A uniform complete with that familiar hound-dog mock-sincerity, just waiting in the wings. Makes winning public theater for the voters every time.

   They'll never lay a glove on Cheney. After all, he's the guy who engineered this whole Chimpy presidency. Trained in the Milhouse Academy of Crooks, Liars, and Thieves, Cheney learned very early on to get toadies to do his dirty work and to put two or three layers of deniability between himself and his handiwork.

   The only way Dems. could get to Cheney is through Libby. And Cheney et al. have sealed that route off, you can rely upon it. Half of Goyadad's prophecy is fulfilled! Libby guilty. Next, they'll run through the various motions for retrial and appeal, and finally get to sentencing, some 9-12 months hence. Then the second half of Goyadad's prophecy comes true: 1 year in Lewisburg. Tops. No pardon, no fuss. Chimpy thinks he's born to the manor---not gonna get his hands dirty with the likes of a flunky like Scooter. Woodint be prizidinchul. Woodint be proodint.

   But like Zero says, Scooter will be well rewarded for his silence on the back end of his time in stir. He's a made man, for sure.

   Posted by goyadad at 03/07/2007 @ 4:36pm

8. Posted by GOYADAD 03/07/2007 @ 4:36pm

   What's Bush got to LOSE by pardoning Libby....especially at some key moment of distraction for the MS Media? (like Hillary winning Iowa on Jan. 14 next year).

   Poll ratings?...not going to go much lower. Congress raises a stink?...not likely, maybe a NON-binding resolution that dies in the Senate. Bad press?....they'll be too busy discussing "Can she win in November?" to spend more than 20 seconds on it.

   Plus provides a good incentive to any other guy in the Mob to keep his trap shut....especially if Libby walks out of prison..."spends time with his family" for a month or two...and walks back into a corner office at Halliburton HQ in Houston.

   Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 4:49pm

9. The only person I see here fixating on "Can Hillary win?" is.....

   MASK!

   Posted by bjkron at 03/07/2007 @ 5:06pm

10. Posted by MASK

    That's why I have no respect for the law: It applies to most but not all.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 5:06pm

11. It would be very good to have a Waxman hearing of the Veep's anti-Wilson machine going on at the same time as Senator Levin's hearing on the Feith lie factory operation that fabricated the Iraq-AQ connection. Every day someone will be on the Hill testifying, "Then the VP told this lie," "then the VP told that lie," "then the VP told another lie".... It's the sort of thing that could put things back on the table that had politely been removed from it.

    Posted by RLawrence at 03/07/2007 @ 5:10pm

12. The only way they can salvage any credibility at all is if Cheney resigns. I don't think he will and the Republicans are then screwed for decades. It's a no win for them and they have it coming.

    What's really pathetic is the deadender right-wingers here who still can't get a grasp on what's happened. People can be that dumb and still vote.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/07/2007 @ 5:55pm

13. What's really pathetic is the deadender right-wingers here who still can't get a grasp on what's happened. People can be that dumb and still vote.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD

    Hell, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others worked for that scum bag crook Nixon; and here they are now, still in DC. People never learn.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 03/07/2007 @ 6:13pm

14. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 03/07/2007 @ 5:55pm

    "People can be that dumb and still vote."

    Yes, one of the glories of democracy, which will keep it ever vital and thriving. No end of fresh voters for the polls. The supply of fools is inexhaustible.

    Posted by MASK 03/07/2007 @ 4:49pm

    "What's Bush got to LOSE by pardoning Libby...."

    No one said zippo about Chimpy losing anything. Chimpy not think that far ahead on nothing. Chimpy got his pride, though. He big on pride and puffery. It beneath Chimpy him get mixed up in pardon for Scooter. It almost seem like there be something wrong Chimpy do to nice Mrs. Plame if him have to pardon flunky like Scooter. So Chimpy take high road. No pardon for Scooter. Lots of cash, though. That make everything better in GOP.

    Posted by goyadad at 03/07/2007 @ 6:25pm

15. Posted by MASK 03/07/2007 @ 4:49pm

    "What's Bush got to LOSE by pardoning Libby...."

    ALSO . . . You forget the ineluctable prophecies of Goyadad: No pardon for Libby. End of story.

    Posted by goyadad at 03/07/2007 @ 6:29pm

16. Cheney won't resign--that would not be a class act and Darth Vader has class. See March GQ for handy, ready-to-file, instant Articles of Impeachment.

    http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5402

    How convenient--just add water.

    Posted by keymanwst at 03/07/2007 @ 6:39pm

17. Posted by BJKRON 03/07/2007 @ 5:06pm

    I'm a Eichardson man...but looking at Obama.

    But not to hopeful for either beating "Ayesha" [en.wikipedia.org]

    Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 7:01pm

18. Posted by GOYADAD 03/07/2007 @ 6:29pm

    Well...that settles it then

    Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 7:03pm

19. Cheney's got bad blood; bad heart; bad intel; bad past; bad rep; bad future; bad posture; bad fear: bad hope; bad solution.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/07/2007 @ 7:04pm

20. It's a long, long way from 1973-74. Your best fantasy comes true, and the spineless Dems start hearings on Cheney. He resigns. And the impact on America: as if one contestant on "American Idol" was dropped. Next week (is it on weekly? I go by what I read) it'll be a better show. Same thing in DC, on the Hill, in the WH. Just what would you expect to change? Since Ronnie took us into tomorrow, the sense of community in this country is negligible. The bottom line of corporations will continue to "improve," but for the schmuck on the street, it's the same crap, year after year. Only, the prices for the crap go up. Get rid of Cheney? Good riddance. And then--new players, same old tune. The tune may change, for a while, if the country turns into another dust bowl. And I'm not sure it'll change for the better. There's all that about about starting down the dark mountain road.

    Posted by donescobar at 03/07/2007 @ 8:07pm

21. So good I'll ask it here too...

    I just did a Search of the archives here at "The Nation" and a question pops up....

    something like NINETY PERCENT of the stories about impeaching Bush and Cheney come from.....John Nichols.

    a smatter of Elizabeth Holtzmann, but not much (in fact COUNTERED by Sanford Levinson against...as well as David Corn, but not here).

    So....given the "ground-swell" for it...

    Where's Katrina vanden Heuvel on the issue?

    Where's Ari Berman?....Peter Rothberg?...Liza Featherstone?...William Grieder?....Max Blumenthal?...Richard Kim?....Helena Cobban?

    Why is THE primary (almost exclusive) person at "The Nation" promoting this "gaining popularity" move to oust Bush and Cheney....

    the ONLY guy who...just happens...to have a book about it?!?!?!!??!

    Posted by Mask at 03/07/2007 @ 10:33pm

22. Since you asked:

    "They should investigate the Bush administration on many fronts, including how Bush misrepresented the prewar intelligence and how he bungled the war, as well as Bush's expansive claims of executive power and how he has put such imperial thinking into practice (wiretaps, detentions, etc.). Perhaps such investigations will produce information or a showdown (say, the White House refusing to turn over information to Congress) that would strengthen the legal and political cases for impeachment. But in order to create a lasting and positive relationship with the electorate, Democrats must deliver legislatively and produce significant bills that connect with the concerns of Americans. That's job No. 1." - Corn

    See, I said that a while back-- but without the 'but'. I said a dem congress can and will do both. The defining mark will be defining markS. Good leg and oversight= impeachment. Plus putting good leg before oversight and thus impeachment does not negate nor oppose impeachment simply prioritizes in which order. Now that some leg has been put forward witness the battle for doc's and supeanas. Steps, one right after the other.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/07/2007 @ 6:42pm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/08/2007 @ 01:38am

23. Mineta testified under oath before the 9/11 Commission that he personally witnessed Dick Cheney order a subordinate to allow the approaching aircraft to strike the Pentagon unimpeded. The direct order was to allow any approaching aircraft to fly direct and unimpeded to its target, without employing any of the readily available countermeasures (missiles) to prevent it.

    This testimony, under oath, is proof that Dick Cheney was in command of the action on 9/11. He personally ensured that the plane (not a civilian aircraft, but an A3 Skywarrior from Raytheon's fleet), loaded with explosives (the smell of cordite hung in the area and those present smelled it), struck the Pentagon precisely as planned, with military precision, including a perfect corkscrew descent - an impossible maneuver for any new pilot.

    There was no pilot aboard this aircraft, and no passengers either (no seats, luggage or bodies were found). It was painted in the company colors of American Airlines and flown by Dov Zakehim's Sysplan technology into the building where he worked as Comptroller. Did Dov place the homing device on the side of the building himself?

    Dov Zakheim is a 9/11 kingpin, along with Dick Cheney, Kobi Alexander and others.

    Mr. Nichols, in the words of Ubber-Zionist, Myrav Wurmser (wife of Cheney's top Middle East Advisor relative to bombing Iran and Syria), "We must move on, and faster."

    Yes Mr. Nicols, we must move on, and faster. On to the crime of 9/11.

    All of the evidence required to indict Richard B. Cheney on charges of Conspiracy to Commit Treason are present. All of the evidence required to Arrest Cheney for his direct role in 9/11 is readily available. All of the evidence to indict Richard B. Cheney under the DC Fraud statutes was revealed in testimony at the Libby trial. Read the Fraud Statutes - look at how Cheney and his co-conspirators have profitted from 9/11 and this war, then tell me he didn't commit FRAUD.

    It is a fact that Vice President Cheney lied repeatedly (and directly caused the President to do so in a STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH), using the People's FCC-controlled airwaves, and the US Mail, to cause the United States to embark upon a policy course that was known to be contrary to the interests of the People Of The United States, and did so for his own personal enrichment (see income from Halliburton and other holdings).

    CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, AND TREASON are ALL indictable offenses.

    Screw impeachment, ARREST THE MAN.

    CONSPIRACY, FRAUD & TREASON = CHENEY

    WASH, RINSE, REPEAT:

    CONSPIRACY, FRAUD & TREASON = CHENEY

    Only by revealing the entire truth of 9/11, and laying all of the facts on the table for the American public to see, can we have or country back. No other investigation or revelation will do it.

    TAKE ON THE TRUTH OF 9/11 AND CHENEY'S DIRECT ROLE THEREIN.

    .

    Posted by plunger at 03/08/2007 @ 06:35am

24. The war has not been "bungled." The execution of the war is "right on-plan."

    The plan was to create a set of circumstances under which it would be both impossible to declare victory, AND impossible to leave. I'm not speculating about this, it's not mere conjecture, it's a FACT. This administration and those ABOVE Bush's paygrade (Rockefeller, CFR, etc.) have been happy to use their controlled-media to paint a picture of inept execution of the war, but trust me, from their perspective, it's going perfectly.

    Stop thinking with your own value systems and your own logical mind. Wurmser, Ledeen and others have told us that the actual GOAL is TOTAL WAR LASTING 100 YEARS. The PERMANANT BASES IN IRAQ confirm this. Use your logical mind.

    They showed you their road map (PNAC), they published their theories and strategies and made it available for all to see. You know that these strategies are the ones being implemented, because you know that Israel has moles throughout the Government (including Lieberman) ensuring that their war proceeds apace at our expense. You know that Larry Franklin imbeded himself in the midst of the WHIG during the run up to the invasion of Iraq, this despite the fact that he actually ran the IRAN DESK. You know he pled guilty to passing Top Secret information pertaing to IRAN on to Israel through the leaders of AIPAC, a known spy organization.

    You should also know that US Submariner, Ariel Joseph Weinmann, was arrested and charged with espionsge in a case at least as damaging to US National Security as was the Jonathan Pollard case. He turned over all of our nuclear submarine secrets to Israel. Now their subs know everything that the US Navy knows - and they're likely shadowing our fleet off the coast of Iran right this moment. If a US vessel is attacked in these waters, and the attack is instantly proclamed to have come from Iran, you now know that it will have been a false flag attack from an Israeli sub. The proclamation from the Liar In Chief will be made that "An attack against a US Flagged vessel is the equivalent of an attack on US Soil" - and the nuking of Iran will commence before you can say "holy shit!" Again, this is NOT CONJECTURE, Cheney has TOLD US that the "retaliation plan" is already in place.

    We know EVERYTHING to make a legal case against this administration AND the government of Israel for their direct role in 9/11 AND taking us into a war of choice under false (flag) prestense.

    Now what are we going to do about it?

    Posted by plunger at 03/08/2007 @ 06:57am

25. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/08/2007 @ 01:38am

    Like your polling data...picking-n-choosing doesn't tell the WHOLE story,HSUB.

    Of course...you know that.

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 07:04am

26. Regarding the Marc Rich Pardon:

    Clinton was set up by Israel, period.

    Monica was a Mossad "Swallow" on a mission to entrap the President - and Israel employed its own (COMVERSE) wiretapping technology to tap phone sex between Lewinski and the President. GHW Bush was in on it too, and that is where, when the alliance between the Bush Cabal and the NeoCONs (Likud/David Rockefeller) was solidified.

    Another "Swallow," Chandra Levy, hooked up with Intelliegence Committee member Gary Condit for the purpose of compromising him in order to ensure that he went along with the 9/11 plans. Levy told her parents that she had some "big news" to share with them when she flew home to visit. She was killed days later, before she got the chance to reveal what she knew.

    As Chandra Levy was signing off of her computer for the very last time prior to going to "meet someone," at that very moment, Gary Condit and Dick Cheney were together in Cheney's office - the perfect alibai.

    Remember that it was revealed that AT&T had been conducting illegal warrantless wiretapping on the government's behalf in the months PRIOR TO 9/11? Was it these taps that picked up the leave phone call with her parents, or Irael's Mossad? Either way, the results were the same. Remember that in the months preceding 9/11, the ABLE DANGER intelliegence program was shut down? These wiretaps likely revealed that the 9/11 operation was being compromised, and Cheney ordered it shut down.

    Clinton was set-up by GHW Bush and Israel - and the PNAC plan was implemented, with 9/11 as the pretext - the "New (Richard Pearle) Harbor."

    Ken Lay, GHW Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were co-conspirators in the FAKE California energy crisis, designed specifically to establish fear of energy shortages in the minds of the citizens of the United States to create the mindset that has led to our acceptance of TREASON, TYRANNY AND TORTURE in return for oil.

    Posted by plunger at 03/08/2007 @ 07:52am

27. Posted by MASK (TM) 03/08/2007 @ 07:04am

    And leaving that part of the story out isn't telling it like it is either-- but then that was what you were counting on us not noticing. Funny how that part of the story changes the meaning somewhat from not doing oversight investigation that will lead to an impeachable offence... into going ahead with it but do it second.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 03/08/2007 @ 08:27am

28. '"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, got it right when he said: "It's about time someone in the Bush Administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics." '

    Yeah.....and Congress can't take the credit Mr. Reid. How about you & your Congressional buddies start to act like jurors in the Libby trial instead of the OJ trial?

    Posted by OneVote at 03/08/2007 @ 08:38am

29. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 03/08/2007 @ 08:27am

    HSUB, investigate all you want, embaress the HELL out of the Administration, no problem from me.....

    but you KNOW what Mr Corn's view on impeachment is...and you leave it out because it doesn't jive with your view and it burns your bisquits to think of a "progressive" who is OPPOSED to impeaching Chimpy and Darth Cheney.

    Posted by Mask at 03/08/2007 @ 09:11am

30. He should pardon Libby like Clinton pardoned Mark Rich. Then they should prosecute the Dem that is on the Homeland Security Committee that had $90,000 in his fridge. Or prosecute Reid for his land swindle deals. Or prosecute Billary for having Vince Foster killed. Ok the last one is reaching a little too far.

    Posted by abell12ct at 03/08/2007 @ 10:02am

31. Saw the juror, Ann, on Hardball last night. As a stunned Chris looked on she told him there was nothing regardinng Cheney mentioned or discussed at the deliberations or in the trial..no evidence of any foul play, actually she said some of Cheneys hand written questions in a report where asking what this "Wilson" guy was doing and who sent him...ie..no smoking gun...and the she said the entire jury wanted to see Libby get a pardon and not go to jail. They thought he lied, but there was no big crime considered and no charges or evidence of anything or anyone else, so they felt this was hitting a small guy...when asked by Chris if she would be upset that on appeal it was over turned she replied,..."No, why would I?"...

    I think they are still cleaning up the set where Chris shit his pants...

    The jury wants to have Libby let go and they felt sorry for them...and not because the "big guys" got away, but because after all the hype..there was nothing there...except the janitor and the parking tickets.

    Posted by john maasch at 03/08/2007 @ 12:10pm

32. JM You make amazing assumptions based on little information.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 03/08/2007 @ 12:38pm

33. It is absolutely unremarkable that a juror would essentially say Libby was the fall guy. Duh! It is a little disappointing that after months of going through all this, an obviously well-educated person would not take lying to a grand jury over issues of national security seriously. I smell a bit of partisanship here.

    This is from a summary on MSNBC's site, I have not heard the whole interview.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 03/08/2007 @ 2:28pm

34. And, yes, the Democrats will make lots of noise but will not actually DO anything in response to the conviction. They'll allow the scandal to play out in the media to tar the Republican administration further in the public's eyes because this will help keep approval ratings down, but they won't do anything like actually force accountability from the administration, which would require them to actually rock the boat.

    Posted by ZERO 03/07/2007 @ 3:58pm

    All the more reason to threaten recall elections against key Democrats who are in positions to initiate impeachment, end the war in Iraq and prevent war against Iran. Democrats are too timid to risk their paarty's chances of winning the presidential election next year; but they fail to realize that if they do not impeach Bush and Cheney, their legislative agenda will not pass and their candidate (assuming it's a current member of Congress) will not win the White House.

    Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 03/08/2007 @ 2:51pm