[BlackGriffen]

AP Article on the Subject:

[...]
In a statement Tuesday, Time said reporter Matthew Cooper agreed to give a deposition after Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, personally released Cooper from a promise of confidentiality about a conversation the two had last year.

Time and Cooper had been held in contempt earlier this month by U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan for refusing to testify in the leak probe. Hogan rejected their claims, as well as those of "Meet The Press" host Tim Russert, that the First Amendment protected them from having to testify.

Cooper had faced up to 18 months in jail and the magazine could have been forced to pay $1,000 a day under the contempt order, which has now been vacated. Russert avoided the contempt citation by agreeing to an interview with prosecutors earlier this month, again after Libby released him from a confidentiality promise.
[...]

Cheney's Chief of Staff was the hit man, huh? I wonder if they'll be able to get Cheney himself to resign over it.

What will Bush do without half of his brain? Cheney and Rove are the ones pulling his strings, judging from characterizations made by the former Secretary of the Treasury in his book. Will he finally latch on to an adviser with sane policies, like Colin Powell, if Cheney is removed from the picture?

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Cheney's Chief of Staff was the hit man, huh? I wonder if they'll be able to get Cheney himself to resign over it.

Careful what you wish for. McCain or Giuliani are still available.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Careful what you wish for. McCain or Giuliani are still available.

If it means making the Bush administration more livable because Bush will have more moderate advisers, I'm all for it.

Besides, do you really think anything is going to be done about it before the election? Even granting no pressure on the DOJ from the WH, the judicial system is just too slow to get to this stuff before then, I think.

BlackGriffen

[BRussell]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Cheney's Chief of Staff was the hit man, huh?

Wow, that's amazing. I mean, no one had any idea it was him.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Wow, that's amazing. I mean, no one had any idea it was him.

I was still hoping it would be Rove going down, but what can ya do...

BG

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Wow, that's amazing. I mean, no one had any idea it was him.

wow, will he take the fall as well as Tenet? You always gotta know when there's a big scandal, and its all the fault of some schmuck who's an asisstant to someone powerful....

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Careful what you wish for. McCain or Giuliani are still available.

Giuliani might.

McCain I'd kind of doubt. To much bad karma behind the Bush admin.

Bush picked Cheney because Cheney was willing to appear as his faithful lapdog while working his ass of behind the scene.

McCain won't sit in his lap like that.

Giuliani will without question. He's the perfect replacement. Nobody will even realize Cheney left.

He's just got to keep his annoying son out of washington for 4 years.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
If it means making the Bush administration more livable because Bush will have more moderate advisers, I'm all for it.

You mean in the second term?

Sounds like a deal to me.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I was still hoping it would be Rove going down, but what can ya do...

Umm, maybe not "hope" anyone goes down?

[chris v]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Umm, maybe not "hope" anyone goes down?

Someone committed a felony. Whoever that was should be caught and convicted. If it was Rove, then so be it. Them's the rules.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You mean in the second term?

Sounds like a deal to me.

What can I say? I'm pragmatic - if I can't have the whole hog, give me the the ugly bastard who's part of the problem. Improvement is better than nothing, right?

I doubt Bush would pick Guiliani, though, because you don't want a VP who overshadows you. Especially given the Quayle rationale - pick a VP who your foes will dislike more than you so that nobody will dare assassinate you for fear of something worse. More likely would be Tom DeLay or some relative unknown.

That's just my opinion, though.

BlackGriffen

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by chris v:
Someone committed a felony. Whoever that was should be caught and convicted. If it was Rove, then so be it. Them's the rules.

That's obvious. Thanks, but you didn't comprehend my point. Perhaps I didn't explain it fully (I was quite brief).

My beef is with his "hoping" the criminal was person A or person B. If someone murdered a child, I would never say "I hope it was chris v" because I disagree with your political views.

[chris v]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
That's obvious. Thanks, but you didn't comprehend my point. Perhaps I didn't explain it fully (I was quite brief).

My beef is with his "hoping" the criminal was person A or person B. If someone murdered a child, I would never say "I hope it was chris v" because I disagree with your political views.

Point taken. I thought you meant that you preferred that nobody be held accountable at all, regardless of guilt. Never mind, then.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Umm, maybe not "hope" anyone goes down?

you don't want someone who committed treason caught? and you call yourself a PATRIOT?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
That's obvious. Thanks, but you didn't comprehend my point. Perhaps I didn't explain it fully (I was quite brief).

My beef is with his "hoping" the criminal was person A or person B. If someone murdered a child, I would never say "I hope it was chris v" because I disagree with your political views.

But its worse to be like you, and hope NO ONE gets caught for committing a felony because of your political views, n'est-ce pas?

edit: sorry, I misread this the first time through....sorry about that. never mind.

See? I'm able to admit mistakes.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
What can I say? I'm pragmatic - if I can't have the whole hog, give me the the ugly bastard who's part of the problem. Improvement is better than nothing, right?

I doubt Bush would pick Guiliani, though, because you don't want a VP who overshadows you. Especially given the Quayle rationale - pick a VP who your foes will dislike more than you so that nobody will dare assassinate you for fear of something worse. More likely would be Tom DeLay or some relative unknown.

That's just my opinion, though.

BlackGriffen

Your pick a VP that people dislike analogy is wrong. That wasn't Quayle, it was Agnew. The line is attributed to Nixon. And anyway, people didn't dislike Quayle, they just diddn't respect him because he seemed like a lightweight.

Dubya Bush is much more confident than his father. GHW Bush picked Quayle in part because he didn't want to be overshadowed, and in part because he thought he was young and dynamic (odd though that seemed later).

Dubya, in contrast, picked Cheney because he was a heavyweight who gave the ticket some perceived experience. Apparently, Dubya isn't worried about being overshadowed.

I don't think at this point Dubya would be overshadowed by anyone on the GOP side. He has been a sitting president for 4 years. It's just not how things work. However, I do think he'd worry about Giuliani's positions biting him with his base -- especially the pro-gay stuff. But you never know, Rudy is very popular.

The same goes for McCain. Both he and Giuliani would be good choices because it would position them for a run in 2008. However, Bush maybe wouldn't want to play kingmaker. That leaves a third hypothetical possibility: what if Powell were to agree to be bumped upstairs? He doesn't want to be president, but might be interested in a less strenuous position that is still close to the center of things.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
That's obvious. Thanks, but you didn't comprehend my point. Perhaps I didn't explain it fully (I was quite brief).

My beef is with his "hoping" the criminal was person A or person B. If someone murdered a child, I would never say "I hope it was chris v" because I disagree with your political views.

Well, I've got a couple of reasons. First, I dislike the Mayberry Machiavelli. I keep it rational with other members of the administration, but with Rove, I just really dislike the guy's personality. Second, I'm not the only one who said it. Ambassador Wilson said he had an interest to see Rove frogmarched out in handcuffs.

Note, however, that I'm not nuts enough to say, "No, it wasn't Libby, it was Rove!"

First and foremost, I want the guilty party caught.

I just also happened to hope that Rove made the mistake of being the guilty party in this case.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

(this was directed to Simey)

sooo...you see the possiblity of someone in the Bush administration being guilty of outing a CIA agent as an opportunity to play "Mystery Date" with possible replacements?

doesn't it bother you that the administration, in order to punish a whistleblower committed a felony and possibly treason?

[zigzag]

Giuliani's problem: the affair he had as mayor. I think he moved in with her while still married, or vice versa. Anyway, I don't consider it my business, but how would it jibe with the whole family values thing?

Politically, I could probably live with Giuliani.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
(this was directed to Simey)

sooo...you see the possiblity of someone in the Bush administration being guilty of outing a CIA agent as an opportunity to play "Mystery Date" with possible replacements?

doesn't it bother you that the administration, in order to punish a whistleblower committed a felony and possibly treason?

From what I have read about the statute, the legalities are interesting and not that clear cut. However, assuming that there was intent and all the statutory requirements are met for a conviction (not treason of course, that's absurd) then, sure, I'd be annoyed if someone from my party committed a crime. I wouldn't want to cover for them the way so many Democrats did when Clinton committed perjury.

However, this is all hypothetical at this juncture. Hypothetically, I think that no matter what his merits, Cheney is a political liability. I would have liked him to step down, not because of any scandal, but because it would have been politically smart. I'd also like either McCain or Giuliani to be eased in to a position to take the party and the country forward in 2008. I think either would make a fine president and from my own point of view, I think either would be inclined to move the party in the direction I would personally like.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Giuliani's problem: the affair he had as mayor. I think he moved in with her while still married, or vice versa. Anyway, I don't consider it my business, but how would it jibe with the whole family values thing?

Politically, I could probably live with Giuliani.

Plus this:





And the fact that after he separated from his wife he moved in with a gay couple. But if he can get past the primaries -- say by being VP to a president liked by conservatives, he would be a powerful asset in a general election.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
wow, will he take the fall as well as Tenet? You always gotta know when there's a big scandal, and its all the fault of some schmuck who's an asisstant to someone powerful....

Will he take the fall? Have you forgotten what Administration we're dealing with here?

If past actions are any guide, I would expect a press conference and the President praising his job performance. That's what he did with Rumsfeld, Tenet...

Remember, it's nobody's fault if something bad happens in this administration.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Giuliani's problem: the affair he had as mayor. I think he moved in with her while still married, or vice versa. Anyway, I don't consider it my business, but how would it jibe with the whole family values thing?

Politically, I could probably live with Giuliani.

Giuliani is a hardliner, and a republican.

But unlike most others, he isn't into this 'god speaks to me' thing.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Giuliani is a hardliner, and a republican.

But unlike most others, he isn't into this 'god speaks to me' thing.

Really it comes down to policy. If you don't like Bush because he is a religious man then you are bigot.