Friday, July 20, 2007

July 14-July 19, 2007

Of Battered Wives
and the US Congress

Is it just me, or have you noticed it too? Something is afoot -- maybe. All of a sudden I am reading and seeing on TV individuals who wear suits and can quote the US constitution from memory, talking about the impeachment of George W. Bush and his sidekick.

My first clue was when I read last week that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a radio station, “We can't take impeachment off the table.”

Holy whiplash, Batman, isn't that exactly the opposite of what she's been saying since crowned Speaker last January? What happened there?

Then there was the extraordinary interview Bill Moyers did last week with John Nichols of The Nation magazine and Bruce Fein, a former Justice Department official during the Reagan administration who drafted articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton.

(If you missed it, you shouldn't have. Here are the highlights: )

Neocons may dismiss Nichol's views as those of a “known liberal,” but what about Fine? No lib there. Fine is the guy conservatives tapped to craft and pen the case against Clinton. Now he wants to do the same thing for Bush – and for precisely the same reasons.

Both men explained that impeachment, always framed by mainstream media as a “constitutional crisis,” is actually precisely the opposite. Impeachment, they explained, is the solution to a constitutional crisis. The real constitutional crisis occurs when Congress fails to protect and maintain the balance of power the Founders enshrined in the constitution.

“The Founders gave congress the power to impeach as the remedy to an imperial presidency,” Fine noted.

Of course those on the right will claim that any talk of impeaching Bush and Cheney is purely political – as though that were something bad. Hello! Of course it's political. It's a political process created and delineated by the cornerstone political document – our US constitution. You remember that the document, the user manual for our democracy. (Maybe it would be more popular if the Founders had entitled it, “Democracy for Dummies.”)

Back when Republicans pushed to impeach Bill Clinton for perjury Democrats screamed, “politics,” too. But Fine explained that Bill Clinton got himself in that jam by trying to put himself above the law. Never mind that what he lied about was hardly a matter of national security, all Fine cares about it that he lied, committed a crime – perjury. The rest is simply back-story.

Fine says that there is now plenty of evidence that Bush and Cheney too have lied -- more than once and about matters far more serious than Clinton's little walk on the wild side. Fien says that is why Congress should have begun impeachment hearings long ago. Not so much to remove Bush and Cheney from office, but as way of laying down constitutional markers, lines in the sand over which Congress was not about to allow the executive branch to simply ignore.

Fien adds that even now that their term in office is short, Congress should still proceed with impeachment hearings in order to reestablish and reinforce the constitutional balance – the whole “co-equal branches” business – as the Founders intended.

But Congress still has not done so. Will they?

Democrats worry that trying to impeach Bush and Cheney would blow back on them in the 2008 elections, by making them appear petty and politically motivated. A perception which is, of course their own damn fault. If they hadn't spent the last six years acting like such a pack of conniving little weasels maybe we'd be less likely to jump such a conclusion.

Now that they've richly earned that reputation they'll have to undo it. And the only way to do that is to start talking to us straight from the heart. Believe me, we do know the difference. We can feel it, even more than we hear it. We know when you're just jerking us off – again. We and, while far and few between, we know immediately when a pol has had it and suddenly starts blathering truth. And we love it when that happens.

If Congress proceeds with impeachment hearings all they need to do is honestly explain why they've come to that point. That they are not attacking a Republican administration, but rather circling the wagons around the US Constitution, under attack by that administration.

Republicans too need to sober up and get on the right side of this fight – just as they did when another Republican president, Richard Nixon, believed he could do whatever the hell he wanted to do, legal or otherwise – too often otherwise.

The sobering agent for Republicans should be evident. In about two years the next occupants of the White House will likely be Democrats. Do Republicans want to have to face four or eight years of being dissed, ignored and further marginalized by a Democratic administration, simply because they allowed Bush and Cheney to set such precedents?

Some also warn that the US Supreme Court, now in conservative hands, could actually validate the Bush administration's expansive view of executive powers. Not likely. While the Supreme Court may have been able to fix one national election for conservatives they can't count of being handed the same extraordinary opportunity again, any time soon. Therefore the Supremes, like Republicans in congress, are not going to want to hand a Democratic president imperial power. (Besides, once congress is neutered, might not the Court itself be next? Sure, why not. A compliant congress might be asked by the president to pass a constitutional amendment clipping the wings of the judges all the way up to the Supremes themselves. “Mission Accomplished.”)

While it's refreshing to see and hear accomplished, articulate and sane adults suddenly talking right out loud about impeachment, nothing is going to happen unless the idea catches fire in Congress. So far it has not, and I have a theory why. Since last November's switch of control in Congress to Democrats, Congress been treated by this administration like the classic battered wife.

For the first six years of the Bush presidency he hardly had to raise his voice. During that period Congress was a perfect Stepford wife, obedient, deferential and which spoke only when spoken to. Then came the 2006 elections and the new Congress got restless. (Call it the Seven Year Itch.) Congress suddenly started talking back, demanding her “rights” and questioning the head of the household.

That's when the real abuse began, and it's gotten progressively worse ever since. Like most abusive relationships the abuser in this case, Bush, et al, have succeeded in keeping the abused off balance, scared, confused and, most important, powerless.

If called to investigate, here's how the police report might read:

Police Report

Incident: Domestic Violence

Suspect(s): George W. Bush, Richard “Dick” Cheney.

Victim(s): US House of Representatives, US Senate


1. Suspect GB has consistently refused to allow victims H and S to participate in decisions involving family matters. GB perpetrated this offense through the use of extra-legal instruments he refers to as “Presidential Signing Statements.” (Claims that GB's associate, DC, shouted at victims, “Shut up bitch, we decide the rules under this roof,” could not be immediately confirmed.)

2. GB and associate, Alberto Gonzales, have repeatedly lied when victims inquired into their actions. (“There hasn't been a single violation of US law in the application of the Patriot Act.”) Said lying appears to have begun almost seven years ago and has continued and expanded to include a broad sweep of issues, including but not limited to possible perjury. These matters include lying about issues critical to the health, safety and security of the family, including but not limited to science, the environment and national security.

3. Possible obstruction of justice and/or destruction of evidence: GB, DC, AG and a number of unnamed associates, when made aware of this investigation, began hiding and destroying evidence and other community property, rather than sharing it with victims as the law requires. (“Oops, seems we deleted a 5 million – executive branch emails.”)

4. Refusal to communicate and/or obstruction of justice : When victims H & S tried to make inquiries into suspects' abusive behavior, suspects GB, DC and others in their employ, refused to communicate with victims, claiming they didn't have to. This extraordinary claim was later extended to cover friends, associates and former employees of suspects as well. (“Harriet Meirs has been told to ignore the Congressional subpoena.”)

5. Alienation of Association. When asked to follow certain laws that cover suspects GB and DC, DC claimed he was not member of that branch of the family after all, and therefore did not have to follow said laws. DC's accomplice, GB, subsequently backed DC's alibi. DC continues to maintain this position, continues to violate said laws and rules and continues to refuse to communicate with victims regarding this ongoing abuse.

The result of all the above abuse of congress and the constitution by this administration has rendered Congress cowed, confused and afraid to act in it's own interest or that of the family as a whole. The remaining Stepford Republicans continue making excuses for their abusive leaders, while Democrats fain action through procedural, “non-binding,” symbolic legislation.

What do we need to do in order to empower these poor, pathetic battered representatives of the people? Are they afraid to act because they no longer feel safe in their own houses? Must we set up a safe house for them somewhere somewhere on Capitol Hill where their batterers can't get at them?

Are members of congress so far gone that we need some kind of national intervention? Do “we the people” need to descend on Washington en mass, drag these legislative basket cases out of their offices one at time and give them the “remember us,” lecture?

Wait! Come to think of it we don't have to go to Washington to intervene after all. Because they are coming to us this August. They'll be back in their home districts (at least when not playing golf or raising money) and that's the perfect time for us to let them know that, if they stand up to their abusers, we'll stand with them.

And, if they won't then we won't be there for them come November 2008.

July 9, 2007

Here's the first story that presented itself when I logged on this morning:

Iraqis warn of civil war if U.S. troops withdraw
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi leaders warned on Monday that an early U.S. troop withdrawal could tip Iraq into all-out civil war after the New York Times said debate was growing in the White House over a gradual scaling-down of forces... "This could produce a civil war, partition of the country and a regional war. We might see the country collapse," Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari, a Kurd, told a news conference when asked about the New York Times report. (Full)

After swallowing my first mouthful of coffee, I heard myself declare out loud, “So what!

I quickly scanned the room to see if anyone might have heard me. I mean, it was such a heartless way to feel, right? Isn't Iraq and deadly conditions oppressing ordinary Iraqis one of the things we Americans are supposed to care about? Like Darfur?

It took a moment for that first gulp of caffeine to jar awake enough neurons. When it did I blurted again; “No f—king way!” Then I reissued my initial judgment on idea that, if US troops leave, Iraq will descend into all out civil war; “So what! Let-er rip.”

The threat that Iraq would devolve in civil war if we reduce our military presence is just the latest in a long string of bogus excuses and justifications for Bush's oil and blood-stained mess in Mesopotamia. Each lie served its purposed until choked to death by the truth. Then the administration replaced it with a fresh piece of complete nonsense. The threat of an Iraq civil war is their latest offering.

So here we go again – and again the administration's little helpers are Iraqi leaders – or would-be leaders. These guys have become accustomed to living fat off US taxpayer money while being protected by US GIs. So, is it any surprise they sing backup for the Bushie band?

That's what's going on here. Both the Bushies and their pretend democratic government in Iraq are now just singing for time. Bush needs time to get out of Dodge before the whole thing blows. And Iraq's “leaders” realize that the day their US protectors depart, Maliki and friends will be swinging from Baghdad lampposts like so many auto air fresheners.

Or as the Daily Show's, Jon Stewart, put it:

“The administration warns that if we pull out Iraq, Iraq will be overrun .... by IRAQIS!”

All of which is reason for you to get ready for a blizzard of new and old "reasons" we can't just pull our troops out of Iraq. It's gonna get intense, so here's my “So what's" for when I run into right-wing family members or friends armed with their own FOX Noise talking points:

They claim: Iran will take advantage of instability in Iraq to exert influence over Iraq's Shiite majority.
The Real Deal: Ah, too late. The US-engineered deposing of Saddam's Sunni dictatorship, was the best thing to happen to the Iranians since the invention of rugs.

They claim: The Kurds in northern Iraq will attempt to set up their own independent nation and lay claim to the oil-rich areas around Kirkuk.
The Real Deal: Ah, too late, again. The Kurds have already renamed their part of Iraq, “Kurdistan,” and they treat it accordingly. As for Kirkuk, while everyone has been focused on Bush's Baghdad surge, the Kurds have been doing a bit of house cleaning of their own in Kirkuk by evicting Sunnis' transplanted there by Saddam's regime.

They claim: Al-Qaida will turn Iraq into a new base of operations, like their former one in Afghanistan.
The Real Deal: Fat chance. If US troops announced they would immediately begin withdrawing, buses heading for Syria would be packed with al-Qaida fighters trying to flee. Those unable to get a seat would turn themselves into departing American forces begging for a room at Gitmo. Because once Americans leave the “enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend,” dynamic that allowed al-Qaida to operate in Sunni areas, would vanish in a puff. The Sunnis never much cared for al-Qaida to begin with, and they like them even less now that they've gotten to know them better. The first order of business after US troops leave Iraq would be to get rid of these unpredictable, violent, and foreign controlled al-Qaida fighters. The Sunnis would begin killing them like rattlers during a Texas snake roundup. The Shiites would wait for surviving al-Qaida fighters to run to them for help and open their arms to them -- like a Venus fly trap.

They claim: Without US troops Iraq will become unstable.
The Real Deal: Too late.

They claim: We need to remain in Iraq in order to give the Iraq government time to pass an oil-sharing law and solidify a government of reconciliation.
The Real Deal: Yeah, and theoretically put enough monkeys pounding away at enough typewriters and they'll eventually produce an entire encyclopedia too. The Iraqi government is not a government. It's some kind of 12-step program for the democratically challenged. And they haven't even completed Step 1 yet. Nor are they inclined to do so. The only reason they show up for meetings at all is because their sponsor says they must if they want to keep getting paid and protected.

They claim: Iraq will break up as nation if we leave.
The Real Deal: So what? When Bush invaded he handed Iraq to the Shiite majority, and they're in no mood to give any of i it back, if they can avoid it. The whole national unity business is just another bit of bogus Bush business. Same goes for the “democracy” thing, all just one big Kabuki dance performed when members of Congress or the US media show up to check on progress. Nothing has changed except which who's in charge. Forget “one-man-one-vote.” Iraq has always been, and remains, a one-bullet-one-vote sorta joint. The fact of the matter is that Iraq is not a real nation, because it has never been one. It's three tribal areas. Oh, and they hate each other. Always have. Always will.

They claim: If we leave now before democracy takes root in Iraq the entire region will remain a democracy-free zone.
The Real Deal: Another “so what.” Go ahead and accuse me of engaging in what Bush likes to call the “bigotry of low expectations.” But it should be clear by now that the Arab Muslim world – intellectually crippled by un-reconstructed Islam – isn't ready for democracy. When it's forced on them they simply misuse it to make matters worse – worse for themselves and worse for anyone foolish enough to believe otherwise. Go head, show me one – just one -- example of a democratic vote in the Arab world leading to anything but a fresh shit storm. The Muslim Middle East is a mess. But they need to be forced to own their own messes. Because only then will they be forced to recalibrate their thinking, and behavior.

They claim: If civil war in Iraqi spreads it could throw the entire region into chaos threatening the West's supply of oil.
The Real Deal: Duh! And just how long do you want to continue being held hostage to that particular reality?

Yes, the old Bush excuses have indeed worn thin. Which is why the administration is desperately searching for a replacement excuse. They need one and need one fast, to buy time. They need just one more to get them to end of their term in office. Which is precisely what the White House is up to right now ... cooking up another reason why US troops need to continue having a “presence” in Iraq.

Pressure grows for a troop pullback in Iraq
Officials fear that political support for president's strategy is collapsing.
WASHINGTON | Defense Secretary Robert Gates has scrapped plans to go on a four-nation tour of Latin America this week and instead will stay home to attend meetings on Iraq, the Pentagon announced Sunday. The meetings are related to a progress report on Iraq that is due to be delivered to Congress by July 15. (Full)

Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall during those meetings! Somehow the administration has to figure out an excuse that buys them enough time. Time for what? For democracy to bloom in Iraq? Forgetaboutit. Global warming will turn Iraq into world's biggest pizza oven before that happens.

No, what the Bushies need more than anything right now is time to get out of Dodge on January 21, 2009. After that they could care less what happened in Iraq. Because either way they get to wash their hands of the mess. One way or another the next administration will have to withdraw US troops, after which Iraq will descend into civil war. Then the Bushies will stand around looking smugger than usual clucking, “told you so.”

I suspect the next excuse they cook up to stay will simply be a retreaded version of their old “al-Qaida in Iraq” excuse. What else do they have left? At least this time -- unlike four years ago -- it will be true. Now there really are al-Qaida fighters in Iraq. They came there to kill US citizens because it saved them the danger and trouble of trying to sneak into the US do it.

Which means that, at least for al-Qaida, if not folks in News Orleans – Bush delivers.

July 6, 2007

War of The Roses
And it's Victims

As best I can tell from my email I have made about as many liberal enemies as conservative enemies -- an accomplishment I am obnoxiously proud of.

I've long believed that the solutions to most of what needs fixing in America are pretty evenly split between the two sides. Conversely, most of what's wrong with America today can be attributed directly to the policies and behavior of both parties.

If American politics were a marriage, this one has devolved into what shrinks might describe as a dysfunctional, codependency.

And what of the rest of us? Well, we're the kids, caught in the middle, half of us defending Daddy, the GOP, and the other half of us going with the Mommy party, the Dems.

And as always when marriages go bad, it's the kids that suffer most and pay the real price.

The Mommy party is an old softy. She wants the best for all her children, be they one minute old or a 110 years. She protects them with a non-stop flow of rules and regulations enforced by legions of bureaucrats and attorneys. Because, you see, Mommy is very, very suspicious of that company man with the candy.

The Mommy party is against capital punishment, doesn't like guns around the house and believes it's wrong to spend billions of dollars on the military while 45 million of her children can't afford to see a doctor. Mommy prefers talking to unruly neighbors rather than shooting at them. Trouble is, not all our neighbors are good listeners.

The Daddy party says it wants the very best for kids too, but tends to favor the kind with no arms, legs, brains, hearts, skin or bones yet -- the “unborn” kids. (A concept Dad refuses to even consider might be the mother of all oxymorons.) Nevertheless Daddy wants to make it illegal to abort any bundle of undefined human cells, but defends the right to inject lethal chemicals into the veins of prisoners in order to abort full-term humans.

Finally, Daddy is a man of action, not words. He prefers shooting first and then, only if absolutely necessary, talking to whomever might still be standing. Trouble is, once the shooting starts, it's nearly impossible to hear anything over the gunfire.

Bottom line: our parents are a couple of real nuts. They need a serious dose of counseling. They need to confront their individual shortcomings, learn how to give each other space and recognize when they are wasting the family's time, money and energy arguing over things that are only important to other nuts.

One of their most enduring, and damaging, disagreements has been over how much a role government and the private sector should each play in American's daily lives. Daddy believes his friends in the private sector can bring efficiency and cost savings to most of what needs doing, from health care to distinctly un-healthy exercises like waging war.

Mommy thinks Daddy's private sector pals are a bunch of snakes, interested only in making money, as much money as possible. She believes that, if taking care of American's basic needs gets in the way of making money, Daddy's friends will sell the kids into white slavery, if that's what it takes to turn a profit.

Sometimes Mommy wins. Sometimes Daddy wins. Trouble is, which ever one wins, we kids seem to lose.
Our health care system, for example, is a monumental mess. Mommy's pet project, Medicare is broke and getting broker by the day. Daddy's friends at private HMOs are bleeding those of us who can afford their services white. Meanwhile those who can't afford health coverage -- or are refused coverage because they might actually need it -- are dumped on Mommy's doorstep.

They've even left our home wide open. The back door has been busted for decades allowing all kinds of folks to just wander in and out, pretty much at will. Some of them are quite nice and even tidy up a bit. But others are not so nice, they hang around and run up expenses the rest of us have to pay. Some are even criminals who do what criminals do.

Still Mommy feels sorry for them and believes we should leave the doors unlocked. Daddy is conflicted. On one hand his tough side wants to lock and bolt the door shut. But his friends in the private sector want him to leave things the way they are, since the strangers work cheap, don't unionize and, when underpaid or mistreated, don't go whining to the authorities like higher-paid, Mommy-pampered American workers.

Mom hates the war in Iraq and says she wants her boys and girls to back home. But when it comes actually putting down her foot and demanding just that, Mom turns out to be a real wuss. Instead of putting her foot down -- in the way only a mother can -- she just bitches about it.

Daddy is not entirely happy with how his war turned out, but is not about to admit he should have stopped and asked directions long ago. Instead he insists we kids stop asking “if we're there yet,” and that he's going to try alternative routes until he gets us where he thinks he's going -- a place he can't describe but assures us is quite splendid. But so far all we've seen on this trip is road kill.

Meanwhile back here at ranch the place is falling apart. Some days it seems nothing works. For example, at the start of the summer season the folks inform us kids we now need passports if we want to vacation in Canada, the Caribbean or Mexico. So we obediently comply – or at least try to comply. But no passports arrive. Why? Because our folks didn't bother to hire enough people to fulfill the inevitable spike in demand for passports. Millions of vacations are disrupted. Thanks a lot Mom and Dad.

Three years ago the folks ordered that a 700-mile fence be built along the US/Mexican border and then they only built 13 miles of it. Now, three years later they are accusing us of being ungrateful children – sharper than a serpent's tooth, because we just laughed when they promised they'd really secure the place if we just agreed to something they called “comprehensive immigration reform.” Fat chance folks. We're older and wiser now. You two are going to either have to get better at lying to us or start actually delivering the things you promise us -- if we're good.

Look guys, the place is a mess. You gotta stop fighting, at least long enough to fix the things that, if left unfixed, are going to put us all into bankruptcy, poison us, drowned us, make us stupider than we already are or send more of us off to die in some godforsaken sand-pit of country that's only claim to fame is that it squats atop a huge grease spot.

Mommy, listen --- we appreciate your concern for us. But sometimes you can be, well – don't take this personally – but you can be really smothering. We don't need to be protected from every little bump in life's road. Darwinism needs to be allowed to work it's magic, otherwise humans are going to end up along with dinosaurs on bone-heap of natural history. Stupid people need to be allowed to be all they can be, until the day they run with scissors or take a hair-dryer into the tub with them or light a match to see if their SUV is out of gas. Because such are the moments when nature culls that particular batch of DNA from the herd.

And Dad, we appreciate your faith in the free enterprise system. When it works it's a powerful force, to be sure. But when it's left to it's own devices it turns predatory – like that family dog we had that started running wild with other neighborhood dogs. They went from being useful watchdogs to a wild pack, biting people, killing chickens and chasing Bambi's mother through the woods. Eventually we had to shoot the lot of them. Likewise, your friends in the private sector need limits, rules, fences. Otherwise they turn into a pack of roving predators. I know they don't like being fenced in. But it's for their own good – and everyone else's.

And can we ask for some base-level of competency out you two? Is that too much to ask from our folks? Here's where Daddy has a point. Remember Dad's old friend, Newt? What a pain in the ass he is. But he's right about how bummed up the place has become. Listen to this. It's short, if not sweet.

How did things get so fouled up? It's a direct result of this non-stop spat between the folks. Mommy thinks federal employees need to be protected from mean, self-esteem lowering superiors. Which explains why Mom and the federal employee unions have become tight as thieves. Just try to fire a federal employee. Forget about it. They could be cooking chickens on spits over open fires atop atop their desks during working hours, and the union would circle the wagons around them -- and Mom would cater the event.

On the other hand Dad has put so many of his private sector cronies in charge of federal agencies and public projects that some days our government feels like a Halliburton/Exxon/Wal-Mart subsidiary. And if you think it's impossible to fire an incompetent federal employee, just try arresting and convicting a crooked private contractor or appointee. They could be caught with their briefcases bulging with stolen taxpayer money, and get away with it – and they have.

Seriously guys, you need to get a grip. We kids have had it and are at the verge of going to court for protective orders against both of you. You're both hanging with bad crowds. You need to get out more and make some new friends.. like maybe us for a change.

Good Question Division

From Readers Pat & Pam

"Don't you think it is ironic that George Bush would define Libby's sentence of 30 month's after being convicted for, basically, treason as "too harsh," when we still have prisoners who have had no charges brought against them tortured and rotting in Gitmo for 5 years?"

July 3, 2007

Waiting For Fitz

Where's the Paris Hilton judge when we really need him? Remember? When LA's soft-headed sheriff sprung the developmentally retarded heiress the judge who sentenced her to a month in the slammer hit the roof, called everyone into his court, and sent little miss weepy back to a cell.

The sheriff tried to justify his decision to commute Ms. Hilton's sentence to home arrest by noting that he felt the original sentence was too severe. The judge disagreed, as did normal people everywhere.

Yesterday Mr. Law-in-order, George W Bush, commuted Scooter Libby's 30 month sentence, for the same stated reason -- too severe. (This from a guy who, when governor of Texas, felt that executing retarded murderers was just fine.)

Of course I understand that this the judge can't reinstate Libby's sentence, because the Prez is like the Pope in such matters, infallible and un-reversible.

But there's still one person who can remedy this outrage – prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. During closing arguments in the Libby perjury case Fitzgerald noted that Libby's lies and evasions had “left a cloud over the office of the Vice President.” Okay. Well, now is the perfect time to either dispel that cloud or let lightening strike where it will.

How? As simple as this:
  1. Impanel a new federal grand jury.
  2. Grant Libby full immunity, meaning he could not take the Fifth, and if he tried he can be jailed for contempt – just as reporter Judy Miller was for trying to protect her source – Scooter Libby.
  3. This time call Dick Cheney and put him under oath.
Simple as that. What crime is being investigated? No piddling perjury this time. No sir. This time Fitzgerald should be investigating is conspiracy to obstruct justice. It's just a suspicion. But that's what grand juries do for a living – investigate suspicion that a crime or crimes have been committed.

So, let us list the circumstantial evidence that might lead Fitzgerald to be suspicious that Bush's commutation of Libby's prison sentence was the culmination of a conspiracy to obstruct justice -- that the fix was in for Libby from day he was charged: "Keep your mouth shut and you'll be taken care of."
  1. We know that Dick Cheney was at the center of administration efforts to discredit former US ambassador, Joe Wilson after Wilson blew the whistle on the administration's uranium from Niger fraud.
  2. We know that Libby met with Cheney the day before he started leaking like a rusty bucket to Judy Miller and other select lap dogs in the media.
  3. We know Libby lied like a rug when he testified before the grand jury, refusing to implicate the vice president, or any other administration officials in what was clearly a concerted, pedal to the metal effort to discredit Wilson by outing his CIA operative wife.)We know that administration friends circled the financial wagons around Libby, paying the millions required to pay his legal team, and raising money to pay his $250,000 court fine.
  4. We know that through all that, Libby has remained as silent as the Sphinx.
  5. We know that the same day a Republican appointed appeals court panel refused to stay Libby's prison sentence during his appeals, the president commuted that sentence.
If that series of events had happened, not within the Bush administration, but within the John Gotti crime family, you gotta know the feds would be hauling associates before a grand jury -- like tomorrow.

So? Hello Mr. Fitzgerald. We;re waiting to see some “nation of laws, not men,” action out of you.