McClellan Will Testify, But Will Congress Act?

posted by John Nichols on 06/09/2008 @ 7:41pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (85)

Subscribe Now

Scott McClellan is the John Dean of the Bush-Cheney administration -- an in-the-know White House aide who has begun to provide the details of high crimes and misdemeanors committed by his bosses.

Like the former Nixon administration lawyer who started talking about a "cancer on the presidency," the former White House spokesman has revealed dramatic details about wrongdoing on the part of George Bush, Dick Cheney, presidential and vice-presidential aide Scooter Libby and political czar Karl Rove.

So the fact that McClellan has agreed to testify under oath before the House Judiciary Committee next week is a big deal.

How big?

That depends on Congress and the media.

What McClellan will talk about goes to the heart of the matter of a lawless administration. When a White House insider agrees to deliver testimony to Congress about whether the Vice President of the United States ordered him to lie about a plot to discredit administration critic Joe Wilson, that's a big deal. When a longtime aide to the president is prepared to tell a House committee that the commander-in-chief admitted to ordering the release of classified information as part of that plot, it is an even bigger deal.

But will members of the House Judiciary Committee recognize McClellan's testimony for what it should be: the opening of an examination of impeachable offenses committed by the president, the vice president and their inner circle? Or will the key congressional committee -- under pressure from a Speaker of the House who arbitrarily determines that the checking and balancing of the imperial presidency is "off the table" -- approach its essential duties as a less-than-equal branch of government? (Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich proposed impeaching Cheney last year, and on Monday he introduced articles of impeachment against Bush. But only a handful of Judiciary Committee members, led by Florida Congressman Bob Wexler, have been willing to call for the opening of impeachment hearings.)

Will a free press that prefers to cover the sport of political campaigning rather than serious issue of how the current government has subverted the Constitution bother to put McClellan's testimony in to context? For instance, will broadcast and cable networks note that the abuses of authority detailed by McClellan parallel the abuses that formed the underpinning for the third article of impeachment that a previous House Judiciary Committee lodged against Richard Nixon?

Every indication is that McClellan will do his part to break down the Bush-Cheney administration's stonewall.

In his just-published book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, the veteran Republican operative suggests that Cheney had pressured him to provide deceptive information about the role administration aides had played in blowing the cover of Wilson's wife, CIA agent Valerie Place.

McClellan has stated publicly that Bush and Cheney "directed me to go out there and exonerate Scooter Libby."

McClellan's book and his statements led Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., to invite the former White House spokesman to testify "concerning reported attempts to cover up the involvement of White House officials in the leak of (Plame's identity)."

McClellan agreed to appear June 20 and his lawyer, Duke University law professor Michael Tigar says, "He has agreed to testify in the same spirit that he wrote the book... Mr. McClellan is available to tell what he knows.''

When America was a functioning constitutional republic, testimony of the sort that McClellans appears to be prepared to deliver would have been all that was required to get the Congress and the media to begin the long-delayed process of checking and balancing a lawless White House.

The questions that Scott McClellan's testimony will raise are many.

But none will be more central than this: Is American still a functioning constitutional republic?

Comments (85)

"But none will be more central than this: Is American still a functioning constitutional republic?"

hasnt been for 7 years...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/09/2008 @ 8:00pm
It poses an interesting "alternative history" (the sci-fi kind)...a "What if..."

That being "What if Watergate hadn't broken for two years after the break-in?" With Sam Ervin's committee not forming until late 1975 and only starting to investigate (with no TV coverage) until the Primaries and a potential "John Dean moment" not until 5 months before the 1976 November election and 7 months before Nixon was to leave office.

AND Agnew not up as the GOP nominee, but somebody like Bob Dole or maybe Harold Stassen.

That said...I think it still peters out, with Pelosi's "off the table" still the paradigm plus the added "It's only a few more months and they'll be gone anyway".

Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 8:20pm
I think you could have Dick with a bleeding head and a machete standing naked on the White House lawn covered with blood and impeachment wouldn't go forward. Why? Complicity. The ONLY reason to not have impeachment move forward is Pelosi et al are intimately involved in the high crimes and midemeanors as well. And everything will come into evidence. If your prosecutor is involved in the crime it's next to impossible to have any sense of fair justice. Personally I say suck it up and make your stand now, regardless of how politically embarrassing it might be, or watch the great experiment fold into fascism.

Posted by yutsano at 06/09/2008 @ 9:00pm
Nichols:

"But none will be more central than this: Is American still a functioning constitutional republic?"

Clearly, we've been on a long downward spiral that just increased its pace to frenzied when the Cheney-Bush regime stole the 2000 election.

Can Obama play the hero, and stabilize our now violently whiplashing aircraft of state?

Stay tuned.

And pray your ass off, or perform any other ritual that strikes your fancy.

I strongly suspect that we've moved past the "hail mary stage" to the "we need a genuine damn miracle stage".

(But at least we can hope that at the rate we're currently losing altitude, perhaps the ending will be less painful.)

Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/09/2008 @ 9:04pm
A John Dean that ignored all Dean has to teach neocons. McClellan's explanations, in fact, are completely lame when it comes to the key questions everyone wants him to answer. There is an answer, an empirically validated explanation based in research on the authoritarian personality/follower. McClellan's hollow responses prove he's barely recovering, barely awakening, just beginning to develop the some perspective. It's a good beginning for him, nothing substantial otherwise.

Posted by winyahn at 06/09/2008 @ 9:06pm
MCLELLAN WILL TESTIFY, BUT WILL CONGRESS ACT? NOPE!

Posted by julien38 at 06/09/2008 @ 9:17pm
I was expecting a "Mask" moment and since I didn't get it, I offer one in its place.

"Was he lying then or is he lying now" is the 'Law and Order' courtroom climax moment. Does anyone else foresee that McClellan's public credibility might be at issue?

I hope that he will offer some testimony that will be credible enough to stimulate some spine growth in other administration functionaries and that Scott's ripple will turn into a wave.

Nah.....Never happen.

Posted by canaar at 06/09/2008 @ 9:24pm
Posted by canaar at 06/9/2008

What kind of "moment" should I have provided?!?!?

I think it ends before it begins and John Nichols is on another wild impeachment hunt.

He's going to have to give it up soon...a couple months and the coffin lid will be hammered on and sealed in concrete.

Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 9:32pm
Give the impeachment talk a break, Nichols!

There are only SIX MONTHS left for these idiots and impeachment will not get them out much sooner. Also not clear impeachment hearings will help Democrats in November at this point, although doing it last year could have made a difference.

I propose taking the testimony and using it as a basis for criminal charges that could be pursued whether they are in office or not.

I think the charges may stick this time with McClellan's testimony.

Posted by Metteyya at 06/09/2008 @ 9:33pm
I agree with you that impeachment was dead before it arrived more's the pity, but I am willing to tolerate well deserved jeremiads.

I am hoping that a criminal (consipracy to subvert the constitution?) investigation of the Bush administration will arise from Scott's modest beginnings. It's a festering boil on we the people that needs to be lanced before we can heal.

Posted by canaar at 06/09/2008 @ 9:38pm
Ib & yutsano: you got it.

Mett: impeachment investigation can begin even after they've left office &, should grounds be found, impeachment proceedings & a trail can occur, constitutionally. It's happened before -- Grant's Sec of War -- & ought to happen again.

But why bother?

To ensure that illegal war, for starters, does not stand as acceptable precedent.

Posted by sloper at 06/09/2008 @ 9:45pm
The only sliver of hope is impeachment is not tied to term of office. Coupled with the termination of state immunity, and Bush may very well have reason to be concerned. Plus what happens if McClellan doesn't respond to the executive privilege call and spills everything? It won't be boring at the very least.

Posted by yutsano at 06/09/2008 @ 9:48pm
"he is doing the right thing and sinning no more"

Well, maybe. Depends on what Qs he's asked & how he answers under oath.

Or whether he gets sent straight to paradise 1st in an "accident."

Posted by sloper at 06/09/2008 @ 10:38pm
Every generation needs a war. The risk of this hasn't changed. Thus far there hasn't been an unearthing of the rush to "war"/invasion. This is a necessary but not sufficient precursor to the possibility of better institutional barriers to bogus, dangerous executive administration activity. I would not be interested in impeachment because it misses the larger upside, doesn't have the more constructive cast that interests me.

Posted by winyahn at 06/09/2008 @ 10:42pm
At the risk of sounding like the bad-tempered old man that I'm rapidly becoming, I offer the following: First, there will be no serious move for the impeachment of anyone. Second, there will be little serious coverage of the hearings. Scotty will get his face time on the tube, but that's it. Lastly, there will be no outrage. Why? Simple. This is not 1974. That United States doesn't exist anymore. We have come dangerously close to losing the republic. It's possible that, in the future, we may become the kind of self-governing nation that the Founders envisioned. It will take some time and some real leadership. I remain cynically optimistic.

Posted by Hamiltonian at 06/09/2008 @ 10:59pm
It would be nice to know what happened...

...so we can prevent it from ever happening again.

Yes... the Republic is struggling... and, No... impeaching anyone is not going to fix it. That day is long past.

We have to care about this country... and each other.

Posted by ttr at 06/10/2008 @ 12:40am
--I feel sorry for the guy. He had his 15 minutes of fame representing the president of the US. Now he's acting like a sullen little boy who wants revenge for not being allowed to stay in the limelight. He needs to grow up and take life like a man instead of listening to his mommy (as rumor has it).--

Posted by lvliberty1

Ah... the sweet words of Christian forgiveness...

I don't get that sense of him at all. He's been coming across as naive on the pundit shows... and the tough questions make him blush. I don't think it's revenge he's after... but absolvement. All this hoopla is a mite bit more than he bargained for...

Posted by ttr at 06/10/2008 @ 01:43am
anyone who criticizes nichols for pursuing the topic of impeachment in these pages has yet to absolve us all of the question: if intentionally misleading the congress and the public into war is not an impeachable offense, then what is? indeed, what is the very point of impeachment, if we can't, in times like these, pursue it?

Posted by darladoon at 06/10/2008 @ 02:38am
Forgive him for what?

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/10/2008

Oh I don't know, lying. Last I checked that was still a sin.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008 @ 03:23am
So I'm wondering why Scottie got green-lighted by the Shrub house to go ahead with this now; it's hard to imagine that if they feared ... anything coming of this that they wouldn't have found a way to shout "state secrets" and shut McClellan down.

I'm also thinking that N. Pelosi has a constituency to answer to, a constituency that is generally left of center and may very well have taken umbrage to the 'off the table' approach.

Were I her, would I want to have to go back and explain why impeachment is still off the table when damning testimony by Scottie-poo is made public?

I think not.

Posted by skeletonman at 06/10/2008 @ 06:25am
It would be nice to know what happened as it would give everyone an idea of what can be got away with. Impeachment is reserved or sexual peccadilloes.

Posted by mikecope at 06/10/2008 @ 07:30am
lvlib.... Stop listening to AM radio.. Do you think THE white house spokesman had no clue when he steps to the podium..?? (ya have to be a little in the know for that particular job) .. You think he didnt have a clearance??? You are clueless... You cant be the trashman at the WH without a clearance... So dont believe FOX or any other WH talking point news source you are getting 'YOUR' pertinent info... He was 'in the know' ... Yeah he will sell books.. but for god sake, you and your republican brethren on here really have to stop looking so ignorant. Its time to call it like it is. This ADMIN will go down in history...The MOST corrupt, ignorant, and damaging to world stablity the United States has ever seen... Oil prices..?? gee.. I wonder whats puttin pressure on the middle east... hmmm.. Dosent take a genius to figure out that one BS war in the gulf and all the BS saber rattling from W and his sad ass administration toward Iran might have something to do with $130+ barrels of crude... If the cook on an oil platform in Nigeria gets a cold, the price of crude goes up a dollar... Ahhh Chooo !! Do the Bush apologists truly think history will prove this fiasco 'worth it'... Come on...

Posted by Vvf1969 at 06/10/2008 @ 08:47am
"I don't think it's revenge he's after... but absolvement. "

If so, McClellan is the perfect witness for the prosecution. If, when he testifies under oath in front of Wexler's subcommittee, he's in a confessional mood, seeking absolution for his accomplice's role in the high crimes -- deceiving the nation into an aggressive war of choice -- then we're in for some highly interesting testimony indeed.

One witness will lead to the next and the next ... executive privilege a weaker & weaker stalling tactic ... and at the very least the revelations will make life even harder for a GOP already on the ropes in the Nov election.

Posted by sloper at 06/10/2008 @ 08:51am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/10/2008

LVLIB basically saying "McClellan was telling the truth before...lying now!"

Which doesn't make a helluva lot of sense, does it?

Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008 @ 08:53am
Pelosi will continue to be W's trump card. A fine speaker she's turned out to be. I wonder what offenses she would would consider impeachable offenses? Outright treason?!

A side note here, but why haven't any of the candidates (Obama or McCain) talk about mass transit in the U.S.? Gas prices are about to sink our economy. The only way out is to have an alternative way for Americans to get to work which is public transportation...or is this idea to communistic or socialisic or un-American.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/10/2008 @ 08:59am
Second, there will be little serious coverage of the hearings.

Posted by Hamiltonian

wanna bet? there is no way in today's climate that this won't be front and center, absent war against Iran.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 09:24am
FRANK, these posts are consecutive??!?!?!

Politics dillweed.----Posted by frankgrits at 06/10/2008

So, due to POLITICS, Hillary endorsed a man for President YOU called "dangerous"!?!?!?!?!?

What? she doesn't love her country???-----Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008

That's right. Would you mind telling me what your education level is?---Posted by frankgrits at 06/10/2008

Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008 @ 09:33am
"Gas prices are about to sink our economy."

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/10/2008

Wolfie, gas may hard on your wallet, but higher gas prices are not going to tank this economy. And the only reason neither cadidate is talking mass transit is because the public isn't making a fuss about it either.

Posted by ACook at 06/10/2008 @ 09:34am
"Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/9/2008 'But none will be more central than this: Is American still a functioning constitutional republic?'

hasnt been for 7 years..."

Seven years? Try 230+ years.

Posted by salfonso at 06/10/2008 @ 09:57am
Ah... the sweet words of Christian forgiveness...

I don't get that sense of him at all. He's been coming across as naive on the pundit shows... and the tough questions make him blush. I don't think it's revenge he's after... but absolvement. All this hoopla is a mite bit more than he bargained for...

Posted by ttr at 06/10/2008

Don't kid yourself. McCllelan knew what he was getting himself into. He said that everyone in the administration was expected to be in lock step once W decided which direction he wanted to go and felt peer pressure and went along.

That's why he's coming forward now supposedly because he feels guilty about not calling Bushco on this in the first place.

As far as Liverhead goes, being forgiving is not his cup of tea. He's a true right wing Christian through and through.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/10/2008 @ 10:01am
Impeachment of the hsuB/cHeney admin for extra and un-constitutional crimes -- good.

A complicit new con GOP and weak-kneed congress -- bad.

It's that simple folks.

Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2008 @ 10:02am
Mask-I never pictured you on stage in fishnet!

It's just a jump to the left. And then a step to the right! With your hands on your hips... You bring your knees in tight! But it's the pelvic thrust / That really drives you insane / Let's do the time warp again!

Posted by meathelmet at 06/10/2008 @ 10:02am
Impeachment of the hsuB/cHeney admin for extra and un-constitutional crimes -- good.

A complicit new con GOP and weak-kneed congress -- bad.

It's that simple folks.

Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2008

Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2008 @ 10:05am
FUCK YOU, JOHN MCCAIN, GEORGE BUSH, AND ALL REPUBLICANS.

Posted by LibsWarnedU at 06/10/2008

Don't sugar coat this, what are you really trying to say? lol

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/10/2008 @ 10:10am
Wolfgang1

you're quite amusing yourself.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 10:12am
Emile! Read the entire sentence. I said SERIOUS coverage.

Posted by Hamiltonian at 06/10/2008 @ 10:17am
Hamiltonian

as opposed to frivolous coverage? you're going to have to explain that one.

incidentally have you seen the pictures of the moving of Alexander Hamilton's house? the third move incidentally. still, impressive.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 10:21am
Posted by LibsWarnedU at 06/10/2008

The Thorazine's not working...we need something stronger!!!

Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008 @ 10:27am
Oh God, I feel like I'm back in the classroom. Serious coverage involves background, context, bringing up the legal, moral, and constitutional issues at stake. It doesn't involve personalities, hurt feelings, grandstanding, softball questions, pandering to the crowd, and it most certainly does NOT involve any of our television gasbags. Ok? Understand? I hope so.

Posted by Hamiltonian at 06/10/2008 @ 10:34am
Hamiltonian

if you condescend, you will not get further response.

when you said serious coverage, I took that to mean quantitative.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 10:39am
I am hopeful that Congress will grow a pair (or at least use the shrunken ones it has) and have the Sargent at Arms go drag Rove into the Senate in handcuffs .. hell, I'll have a hangin' party at my house. I'll make Sangria and BBQ!

Posted by leftofcenter at 06/10/2008 @ 10:53am
Without regard to whether or not impeachment is warranted (I believe it always was), get off the impeachment train folks. If there wasn't the "stomach" for it three years ago, there won't be with six months to go.

McClellen's testimony will simply be another large blow to Bush's already doomed legacy.

Posted by Hman23 at 06/10/2008 @ 11:21am
I am glad that Mr. Nichols is now approaching the idea of impeachment as not "when" but "if" as to Congressional action.

I think this is more window dressing for congressioanl oversight, or more accurately lack of oversight.

Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2008 @ 11:49am
Flash: Nichols needs more book sales.

that is about as newsworthy as this topic gets.

Mclellan's book has shown "there is no there, there". He offers vague hints and inuendo of wrongdoing. But has nothing of substance.

He certainly doesn't have any information about the lead up to the Iraq War. He didn't even have a security clearance at the time. So he wasn't even in those meetings.

I feel sorry for the guy. He had his 15 minutes of fame representing the president of the US. Now he's acting like a sullen little boy who wants revenge for not being allowed to stay in the limelight. He needs to grow up and take life like a man instead of listening to his mommy (as rumor has it).

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/10/2008

Have you actually even begun to read the book LVL? I have. I'm barely 100 pages in and yet all the inuendo you speak of is not there. He flat out says that there was wrong doing.

In Iraq. He says that the biggest evidence Bush and Cheney gave us at the time to go to war was a forgery. It was a KNOWN forgery at the time. They used sneaky methods like sending Colin Powell, the most trusted face in that administration, to tell us about the evidence being true even though they KNEW at the time it was false.

He then goes on to talk about Cheney and Libby. That they intentionally attempted to discredit Wilson in order to prevent the forgery from coming to public light. They then sent Scott out to lie to the American people and say that no one in the administration had anything to do with it. Even though he says Bush declassified the information so that Cheney and Libby could see it and they those two fed messages to certain friendly press members in order for the story to get out.

That is not innuendo. Those are direct charges. However just like you always like to play the "Oh liberals don't care about the evidence even when it is put right in their face card," YOU are ignoring the evidence. Instead of accepting that maybe what he says is true you try to discredit the author by saying he had his 15 minutes. Childish....

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008 @ 11:59am
Flash: Nichols needs more book sales.

that is about as newsworthy as this topic gets.

Mclellan's book has shown "there is no there, there". He offers vague hints and inuendo of wrongdoing. But has nothing of substance.

He certainly doesn't have any information about the lead up to the Iraq War. He didn't even have a security clearance at the time. So he wasn't even in those meetings.

I feel sorry for the guy. He had his 15 minutes of fame representing the president of the US. Now he's acting like a sullen little boy who wants revenge for not being allowed to stay in the limelight. He needs to grow up and take life like a man instead of listening to his mommy (as rumor has it).

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/10/2008

Have you actually even begun to read the book LVL? I have. I'm barely 100 pages in and yet all the inuendo you speak of is not there. He flat out says that there was wrong doing.

In Iraq. He says that the biggest evidence Bush and Cheney gave us at the time to go to war was a forgery. It was a KNOWN forgery at the time. They used sneaky methods like sending Colin Powell, the most trusted face in that administration, to tell us about the evidence being true even though they KNEW at the time it was false.

He then goes on to talk about Cheney and Libby. That they intentionally attempted to discredit Wilson in order to prevent the forgery from coming to public light. They then sent Scott out to lie to the American people and say that no one in the administration had anything to do with it. Even though he says Bush declassified the information so that Cheney and Libby could see it and they those two fed messages to certain friendly press members in order for the story to get out.

That is not innuendo. Those are direct charges. However just like you always like to play the "Oh liberals don't care about the evidence even when it is put right in their face card," YOU are ignoring the evidence. Instead of accepting that maybe what he says is true you try to discredit the author by saying he had his 15 minutes. Childish....

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008

Time Warped

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008 @ 11:59am
Flash: Nichols needs more book sales.

that is about as newsworthy as this topic gets.

Mclellan's book has shown "there is no there, there". He offers vague hints and inuendo of wrongdoing. But has nothing of substance.

He certainly doesn't have any information about the lead up to the Iraq War. He didn't even have a security clearance at the time. So he wasn't even in those meetings.

I feel sorry for the guy. He had his 15 minutes of fame representing the president of the US. Now he's acting like a sullen little boy who wants revenge for not being allowed to stay in the limelight. He needs to grow up and take life like a man instead of listening to his mommy (as rumor has it).

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/10/2008

Have you actually even begun to read the book LVL? I have. I'm barely 100 pages in and yet all the inuendo you speak of is not there. He flat out says that there was wrong doing.

In Iraq. He says that the biggest evidence Bush and Cheney gave us at the time to go to war was a forgery. It was a KNOWN forgery at the time. They used sneaky methods like sending Colin Powell, the most trusted face in that administration, to tell us about the evidence being true even though they KNEW at the time it was false.

He then goes on to talk about Cheney and Libby. That they intentionally attempted to discredit Wilson in order to prevent the forgery from coming to public light. They then sent Scott out to lie to the American people and say that no one in the administration had anything to do with it. Even though he says Bush declassified the information so that Cheney and Libby could see it and they those two fed messages to certain friendly press members in order for the story to get out.

That is not innuendo. Those are direct charges. However just like you always like to play the "Oh liberals don't care about the evidence even when it is put right in their face card," YOU are ignoring the evidence. Instead of accepting that maybe what he says is true you try to discredit the author by saying he had his 15 minutes. Childish....

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008 @ 12:06pm
if you condescend, you will not get further response.---Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008

Hypocrisy Post of the Year Award!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008 @ 12:06pm
Flash: Nichols needs more book sales.

that is about as newsworthy as this topic gets.

Mclellan's book has shown "there is no there, there". He offers vague hints and inuendo of wrongdoing. But has nothing of substance.

He certainly doesn't have any information about the lead up to the Iraq War. He didn't even have a security clearance at the time. So he wasn't even in those meetings.

I feel sorry for the guy. He had his 15 minutes of fame representing the president of the US. Now he's acting like a sullen little boy who wants revenge for not being allowed to stay in the limelight. He needs to grow up and take life like a man instead of listening to his mommy (as rumor has it).

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/10/2008

Have you actually even begun to read the book LVL? I have. I'm barely 100 pages in and yet all the inuendo you speak of is not there. He flat out says that there was wrong doing.

In Iraq. He says that the biggest evidence Bush and Cheney gave us at the time to go to war was a forgery. It was a KNOWN forgery at the time. They used sneaky methods like sending Colin Powell, the most trusted face in that administration, to tell us about the evidence being true even though they KNEW at the time it was false.

He then goes on to talk about Cheney and Libby. That they intentionally attempted to discredit Wilson in order to prevent the forgery from coming to public light. They then sent Scott out to lie to the American people and say that no one in the administration had anything to do with it. Even though he says Bush declassified the information so that Cheney and Libby could see it and they those two fed messages to certain friendly press members in order for the story to get out.

That is not innuendo. Those are direct charges. However just like you always like to play the "Oh liberals don't care about the evidence even when it is put right in their face card," YOU are ignoring the evidence. Instead of accepting that maybe what he says is true you try to discredit the author by saying he had his 15 minutes. Childish....

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008

Time warped for the 5th time.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008 @ 12:07pm
I seem to be incapable of posting anything that doesn't get time warped.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008 @ 12:08pm
"Lying to the American people to start a war? Come on that is not worth our time why would we bring anyone to court on those charges? Now getting a BJ in the Oval office, THAT is a serious offense."

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008

CCC3 big difference. Getting a BJ or lying to you ain't a serious offense, but lying to federal grand jury UNDER OATH is...

Posted by ACook at 06/10/2008 @ 12:11pm
you're quite amusing yourself.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008

Thank you. Best compliment I've had today.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/10/2008 @ 12:16pm
I also want to address this revenger charge that is being leveled at him. Everyone is screaming "well he just wants revenge!" That may be true but does that mean his facts are false? I contend it doesn't. When you are privy to the kind of information he is privy to, you can often times do more damage with the truth than you can with a lie. Why? Well the truth can never be fully discredited because the evidence to prove it as a truth still exists. A lie can be easily discredited by offering the truth.

So what does the government do instead when someone is telling a truth they can't discredit? They discredit the author of the truth. They did it to Joe Wilson and you are already starting to do it to McClellan for different reasons. LVL does it because he refuses to believe any evidence against Bush. Mask does it because well...Mask just always assumes the worst. I still contend with you that McClellan's evidence, whether an act of revenge or not, is still very serious and should be taken that way.

Also to LVL saying that he didn't even have security clearance at the time to know anything about the Iraq war, I guranteee you knows a lot more than you think. I gurantee you he was given tons of information on the beginnings of it because he needed it to be able to do his job as Press Secretary because there were still question being fired at him about the beginning of the war. So I guarantee you that, even though he may not have to complete story, he knows some things that could do damage.

I also contend that he must have more up his sleeve if he is going before the Senate to testify. It will be interesting to know what else he has up there.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008 @ 12:18pm
Not at all.

On Iraq, McClellan was not a participant in the NSC meetings prior to the Iraq War. Therefore what he shares now is purely opinon and not related to facts that he had on hand.

Secondly on Wilson/Plame, it is obvious to any objective person that he is not being forthright now since the Fed prosecutor, Novak, and Armitage himself, have all confirmed that Armitage was the initial leaker, not Rove or Libby.

Again, I do feel sorry for him.

And for Wolfgang and others who suggest I don't have forgiveness for McClellan; of course I do. Why wouldn't I? Except he hasn't asked anyone for forgiveness. That is why I asked the question.

There is no person on earth that I wouldn't offer forgiveness towards if they asked in sincerity.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/10/2008

So Armitage can't possibly have been lying? That is not possible! Do you really think that they were not made to lie to save the administration?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008 @ 12:24pm
McClellen's testimony will simply be another large blow to Bush's already doomed legacy.

Posted by Hman23 at 06/10/2008

This isn't about whether or not Bush has a legacy and people have fond memories of W's presidency or not.

It's about a president knowlingly breaking the law and doing an end around using executive privelege to cover up any wrong doing. It's also about a congress not doing it's job and blindly handing power to the executive branch without even seeing the situation through.

Why should the executive branch have completely unchecked authority and for that matter, the power to extend it's authority whenever it feels the need?

What's to stop a corporate entity from pushing a front man into the white house and from there, pretty much running the country to back their corporate agenda? This is pretty much what has happened.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/10/2008 @ 12:26pm
McClellen's testimony will simply be another large blow to Bush's already doomed legacy.

Posted by Hman23 at 06/10/2008

This isn't about whether or not Bush has a legacy and people have fond memories of W's presidency or not.

It's about a president knowlingly breaking the law and doing an end around using executive privelege to cover up any wrong doing. It's also about a congress not doing it's job and blindly handing power to the executive branch without even seeing the situation through.

Why should the executive branch have completely unchecked authority and for that matter, the power to extend it's authority whenever it feels the need?

What's to stop a corporate entity from pushing a front man into the white house and from there, pretty much running the country to back their corporate agenda? This is pretty much what has happened.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/10/2008 @ 12:29pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/10/2008

YAY!...FRANK's back...and I only have ONE question for him (that he won't directly answer, of course)...

FG, WHY did Hillary endorse Barack Obama for President?

Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008 @ 12:48pm
McClellen's testimony will simply be another large blow to Bush's already doomed legacy.

Posted by Hman23 at 06/10/2008

What's to stop a corporate entity from pushing a front man into the white house to do their bidding for them? I believe that is called graft and we've been witnessing graft as an art form with W at the helml.

The only check on the executive branch is congress, and congress has sat idly by and allowed this. Bushco expanded it's authority, broke whatever laws it deemed necessary and hid behind the executive privelege claim.

Two things have happened in all of this. One is that congress has almost made itself a useless entity. Another is that Bushco has managed to undermine the federal government which is a wet dream to neocons. They wish to privatize everything and what better formula to do this than destroy the confidence of the people in the government?

So, letting them just run the clock out won't restore peoples' faith in the system of checks and balances. Congress should at least entertain the idea of proceeding with the impeachment process. Pelosi needs to pull her head out.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/10/2008 @ 12:50pm
These pieces of dic'tator supporting new con crappola deserve prison big time. Their incompetence, negligence and down right criminal behavior is responsible for at the very least over 7000 US deaths and 10's of thousands maimed, 100's of thousands mentally scared for life. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, millions homeless, maimed and scared for life.

That they also screwed up our economy and constitutional form of government should increase our resolve to through away the key to their dungeon address.

That some here want these criminals to skate is sickening. They have no shame.

Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2008 @ 12:51pm
it appears that many on this forum, including liberty, are ignorant about how impeachments proceedings evolve. if one person, who carries enough evidence and determination to proceed, introduces articles of impeachment (as kucinich has), and is able to secure the sustained involvement of other congressional figures, members of the media and the general public, then what for do we criticize kucinich (and nichols, and others) for doing what is wholly constitutional? because he can't possibly succeed? is that why kucinich and nichols should just 'shut up'? because they can't possibly succeed, even though what they are doing is widely supported amongst their constituents?

we should applaud people like kucinich and nichols, if only because they are doing what everyone knows is the right thing.

bush misled the public into war, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

hello? can someone here tell me that this is not an impeachable offense?

Posted by darladoon at 06/10/2008 @ 12:52pm
These pieces of dic'tator supporting new con crappola deserve prison big time. Their incompetence, negligence and down right criminal behavior is responsible for at the very least over 7000 US deaths and 10's of thousands maimed, 100's of thousands mentally scared for life. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, millions homeless, maimed and scared for life.

That they also screwed up our economy and constitutional form of government should increase our resolve to through away the key to their dungeon address.

That some here want these criminals to skate is sickening. They have no shame.

Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2008

Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2008 @ 12:52pm
So new posts start in the middle of the thread now?

Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2008 @ 12:54pm
hello? can someone here tell me that this is not an impeachable offense?

Posted by darladoon at 06/10/2008

Lying to the American people to start a war? Come on that is not worth our time why would we bring anyone to court on those charges? Now getting a BJ in the Oval office, THAT is a serious offense.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008 @ 1:00pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/10/2008

I do not disagree with anything you posted. My comment was more a prediction than a advice for Congress - and not a very daring prediction, I freely admit.

Posted by Hman23 at 06/10/2008 @ 1:01pm
Jesus I am getting time warped all over the damn place.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008 @ 1:02pm
hello? can someone here tell me that this is not an impeachable offense?

Posted by darladoon at 06/10/2008

Darla, You won't see me hammering on Nichols or Kucinich for trying. However, Pelosi puts a stop to it before he can get the ball to even start rolling.

One can only hope that there truly is this God W professes to follow and that W and his minions will have to explain to the all mighty upon their reckoning day why they have the blood of thousands upon their greedy mits.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/10/2008 @ 1:04pm
HEY NATION! CAN YOU STOP TIME WARPING POSTS ALL OVER THE PLACE. This is ridiculous. How are you supposed to have a conervsation with someone when you can't tell which post belongs where. I am not here to solve puzzles.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008 @ 1:04pm
It's an inpeachable offense of the worst kind. I'm ashamed of my fellow democrats for not having the balls to take this to it's logical conclusion. I guess the Bushies covered their tracks well enough to thwart the process. McClellen's testimony will provide fodder for the talking heads but it will not make a dent in Bush's armor. He will finish out his term. The war in Iraq will end in victory for us and Dubya will go down as the hero. That's the way it works.

Posted by frankgrits at 06/10/2008

I think people should have realized that there was something up when Bush pushed through the Senate legislation to make him immune to investigation. That would have been a bit a of a red flag for me.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/10/2008 @ 1:09pm
(Time warp)

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/10/2008

I do not disagree with anything you posted. My comment was more a prediction than a advice for Congress - and not a very daring prediction, I freely admit.

Posted by Hman23 at 06/10/2008 @ 1:13pm
bush misled the public into war, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. hello? can someone here tell me that this is not an impeachable offense? Posted by darladoon at 06/10/2008

Indeed it is. Moreover, impeachment can proceed constitutionally even AFTER W&Co have left office, with a range of punishments open, including the lifetime prohibition against ever holding an office of public trust again (cf. impeachment of Grant's Sec of War, after leaving office).

Why bother? some may say. Because to keep this off the table, will leave on the table the precedent of illegal war waged with impunity, for future administrations to emulate.

Posted by sloper at 06/10/2008 @ 1:18pm
bush misled the public into war, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. hello? can someone here tell me that this is not an impeachable offense? Posted by darladoon at 06/10/2008

Indeed it is. Moreover, impeachment can proceed constitutionally even AFTER W&Co have left office, with a range of punishments open, including the lifetime prohibition against ever holding an office of public trust again (cf. impeachment of Grant's Sec of War, after leaving office).

Why bother? some may say. Because to keep this off the table, will leave on the table the precedent of illegal war waged with impunity, for future administrations to emulate.

Posted by sloper at 06/10/2008 @ 1:19pm
bush misled the public into war, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. hello? can someone here tell me that this is not an impeachable offense? Posted by darladoon at 06/10/2008

Indeed it is. Moreover, impeachment can proceed constitutionally even AFTER W&Co have left office, with a range of punishments open, including the lifetime prohibition against ever holding an office of public trust again (cf. impeachment of Grant's Sec of War, after leaving office).

Why bother? some may say. Because to keep this off the table, will leave on the table the precedent of illegal war waged with impunity, for future administrations to emulate.

Posted by sloper at 06/10/2008 @ 1:21pm
Yo, Nation, wake up! Yr site is malfunctioning, sticking posts in the oddest spots, out of order.

Posted by sloper at 06/10/2008 @ 1:25pm
There is no person on earth that I wouldn't offer forgiveness towards if they asked in sincerity.

Posted by lvliberty1

but would you mean it?

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2008 @ 1:31pm
what a frikkin' mess!

post-a-mania!

pastor larry: bush is a criminal who has endangered your grandkids.

ibbs: i think it's been absent for more than 7 years.

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2008 @ 1:38pm
Politics dillweed.----Posted by frankgrits at 06/10/2008

So, due to POLITICS, Hillary endorsed a man for President YOU called "dangerous"!?!?!?!?!?

What? she doesn't love her country???

Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008 @ 2:16pm
Time Warp...try again...

Politics dillweed.----Posted by frankgrits at 06/10/2008

So, due to POLITICS, Hillary endorsed a man for President YOU called "dangerous"!?!?!?!?!?

What? she doesn't love her country???

Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008

Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008 @ 2:17pm
Mclellan's book is evidence that we all knew to be true from as far back as 2003 March when this Turkey of a so called "President" took this nation to war. His reasons for going, continuously changed because he was often challenged on the merits of going to war. Mclellan's book is not a major surprise, but a major corroboration of what we all knew. Being born in Damascus and going back from time to time, I could see how the Syrians would cooperate with the US on issues such as border control. I also found out on a last 4 years ago how the US tried to influence and control the Syrian education system to reflect their own values with the threat of punishing that country militarily if the Syrian government did not comply. Proof of Bush's consistent lying was the day I was in Eastern Syria near the border between Syria and Iraq. Have any of the writers posting comments been to the Iraqi-Syrian border? You will find that there is in fact no border, just desert and an imaginary line. Oh sure, now there is to some extent, now that the Syrians have complied with the US threats to do a better job. Oh by the way, how is that border thing going between the US and Mexico. Have we sealed that off 100% yet as the Bushies insisted the Syrians do with their border to Iraq? Yea, I didn't think so. There are so many reasons to start impeachment hearings on the loser duo, the Cheney-Bush Junta that any other decision, BUT IMPEACHMENT, would simply confirm spinelessness; the type that people like Pelosi and her ilk continue to hype on the American people. Interesting how good ol' Roberts will have to handle this when and if it comes to pass. Bugliosi in his new book "The Impeachment of George W. Bush" has it right. He is no less responsible for the murder of 4,000 + military personnel and 100,000 to 500,000 (depending on whose sources one believes.) Rove took much from Lee Atwater's playbook when he worked for the Cheney-Bush Junta, but at least Atwater had the conscience to make peace with his God and apologize for his ways before he died of his brain tumor.

Posted by maxvo2 at 06/10/2008 @ 2:49pm
FrankG

Did you get the URL I posted previous for your "Fireside Chat"? Its at: http://home.avenuebroadband.com/~dvaughn58/GOP_theater.html

Posted by leftofcenter at 06/10/2008 @ 2:54pm
Oh Geez .. this thing is posting in "no specific order" mode again .....Kee-ripes

Posted by leftofcenter at 06/10/2008 @ 2:55pm
Could I please give a shout-out to Joan Goodall on how great this "new and improved" website is?

LET'S DO THE TIME WARP...AGAAAAAINNNN!!!

It's just a jump to the Top....

Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008 @ 3:13pm
Surely we're close enough to the end of Bush's term to get over this impeachment fixation. It never would have gone anywhere in the Senate, so what good would come of it. The real point of calling McClellan to testify is to keep the fallout from his book in the news, remind people about White House abuses of power, and tarnish McCain with it. The effect that could have in November is much better than whatever impeachment would get. And if Conyers really has the cojones to use inherent contempt to lock up Karl Rove in the basement of the Capitol, I'd pick that over impeachment any day!

Posted by scottbp at 06/10/2008 @ 6:46pm
It doesn't matter Darladoon, it really doesn't. Little of what's going on right now really matters. Illegal wars WILL become a precedent of American foreign policy. Illegal wars will become a precedent of just about everyones foreign policy as the world polarizes for the coming conflicts over oil and water. Don't think it's just the US, China, and Russia that will be in these fights. Sure they may be the power players, but everyone needs oil and water. We are going to see conflict on a scale that hasn't been seen since WWII. The political and economic elites realize this, and are acting accordingly. The less blind among them are at least trying to push for a workable post oil economy, but ultimately it's to late in the game to get one up and running before the era of global oil conflict sets in, with peak oil being predicted only a few years away.

A lot of them are also looking at stop gaps, coal and uranium mainly. Success of this agenda would leave the job of building a post oil economy to someone else. Even if a post oil economy is built, these fuel sources may have to be used in order to build it. Other options may simply not exist. A lot of people don't realize this, and hence the left has taken to criticizing these two kinds of fuel heavily, without actually understanding the reasons the right is touting them.

A lot of the problems we currently face are going to be much reduced, (assuming our society survives somewhat intact) when one of the most deadly viruses ever to sweep the planet finally develops a strain that can be spread fast enough to go pandemic/and or one that kills it's hosts slowly enough that it can be passed on reliably (avian bird flu). This nearly happened already, and it was revealed that the stock piles of vaccines against this most deadly of viruses aren't anywhere near sufficient to deal with the problem. After the scare was over, Avian Bird Flu dropped from the news.

The Funny part about my observations? Everything I just typed is derived from The Nation articles, yet even The Nation refuses to treat these issues as serious business deserving of serious coverage. C'mon TN, figure out why there aren't enough Vaccines to go around should Avian Flu Virus strike. Shine some light on the silence that surrounds that issue. Do some in depth reporting on why exactly coal and nuclear are being touted as solutions. Not just the reasons touted by politicians looking to win votes, the real socio-economic reasons behind them. How viable is building a green economy off of the remaining oil reserves anyway?

So yes, this is the future we face. We are currently staring a pandemic in the mouth and are unable to do anything. An energy crisis that is neatly coupled with a global warming crisis, for which the temporary solving of one is going to exacerbate the other (this is true no matter which one of the problems you solve). And even people as politically engaged as The Nation readers are still saying that impeaching Bush is really going to change anything. Wake up and smell the roses people, you've got fish to fry that dwarf your frying pan.

Posted by shadow master at 06/10/2008 @ 6:58pm
lvliberty - once a week or more I plead with you to come out of the closet! It is ok that you are communist, here in the U.S. to be communist is legally protected. Why torture yourself everyday pretending to be a right wing extremist? Embrace yourself lvliberty. In fact, learn to love yourself. Be the communist you really are.

Posted by guanabana at 06/11/2008 @ 8:59pm
It will be interesting in the hearings if McClellan comes out with facts. I mean he says he saw cheney and libby in an office and he knew they were talking about wilson even though he couldn't hear what they were saying. We should show him a picture of Sadr and Ahmedinijad so he can figure out what they are saying.

bush misled the public into war, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Posted by darladoon

Bush led us into a just and legal war and stopped the massacre and starvation of thousand of innocent Iraqis.

Bush Led, Tyrants fled.

Posted by abell12ct at 06/12/2008 @ 10:17am
As long as the criminal gang known as the Republican party holds at least a third of the seats in the House Bush is unimpeachable.Period.But it is time for the US to remember that immunity from prosecution ends with the term in office.Bush and Cheney need to step out of office and into jail.The next president needs to make prosecution of this president's crimes and criminals a major priority. An ex-pres spending life in prison may be just the thing to make presidents of our future think twice about running roughshod over the law and the American people.

Posted by MSWhiteman at 06/12/2008 @ 2:02pm