Justice Department Official to Take the Fifth

This promises to get very juicy indeed.
Should be worth watching. Kind of a whole "Deja Vu" feel to it for those of us who lived through the Nixon years, huh?

Sounds like that "official" does not understand the law.
What a surprise.

These people suffer from two related problems.

One. They lie all the time about everything.
Two. They are arrogant enough to think that they can continue to get away with it.

And, for the most part, they do get away with it...

"Executive privilege" is now nothing more than a constitutional smoke screen for lying, cheating and stealing. Just what Jefferson, et al, had in mind...

Uh Hugh? She's not a liberal. She's a Bushie. Try again another time.

Its her choice to take the 5th, maybe, she does not want to implecate someone else or better yet, be known as a snitch. Maybe, she knows there is no wrong doing and the administration is just letting the Dems, work for what they think is wrongdoing. It could be a conspiracy, to give the Dems enough rope and find nothing, then the Dems would look pretty stupid.

Vickey the fifth amendment allows a witness freedom from self-incrimination. No person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Looks like somebody feels that her testimony under oath is potentially crimminal and could lead to indictment and conviction. That's the only reason to use the fifth.

Exactly. While it's her choice to take it, and nobody would argue that, it certainly leads to Sam's question as to why she would feel this way considering that nothing in the firings themselves was illegal. It is just really really interesting to speculate on what she might know that is so bad she could go to jail for it.

Much ado about nothing....except it takes the focus off the agenda of walking away from Iraq and leaving yet another nation to the "killing fields" How do we sleep at night?

Captain? Our illustrious Commander in Chief has left us no choice but to walk away and save the lives of our own military men in Iraq. He took us into a disastrous war on false pretenses which is bad enough. But worse he went in without a plan to win there or to effectively and efficiently manage the occupation. Over the past four years he's consistently refused to budge from his pie-in-the-sky delusion that any day the Iraqis were going to simply put aside centuries of sectarian hatred and all join hands and begin singing Kumbaya. The Iraqi government is fully as corrupt as Saddam's. It's positively riddled with militias and people who support this sectarian civil war and the ensuing blood bath.

It is stupid to keep pouring billions into this hell hole we created without even a definition of what victory there would mean and a solid and workable plan to achieve it.

Capt in a way you are correct. It's naive to think that Fed proscecutors are not subject to political pressure, on the record and off. It's been that way under different parties for a long time. This episode is particularly arrogant and poorly managed, typical of Bush and Co operations. The pursuit by Dems suceeds in creating one more layer of disgust for Bush and particularly the Republican Congress who left him unchecked. The Dems will dribble out one scandal after another for the next 2 years just to convince voters Repubs are fatally bad and Dems the honest alternative. Politics.

When we exit Iraq, (and we will exit), there will be score settling and cruel bloodletting. I don't know if it will be more extensive than the sectarian violence today. Given control again of their own nation the Iraqis may eagerly seek to compromise politically and find their own way out of the Bush created disaster. However they may not let US oil companies squeeze 75% profits and Halliburton exclusive rebuilding contracts and as long as Dubya and his minions are anywhere close to the reigns of power they will expect their payback.

Carolyn,

20 20 hindsight can always make clearer focus on what results should or might have been. I don't think any Amrican has still comes to terms with the basic fact that a people like the Iraqis fear what needs to be done to have freedom more than they fear living under repressive and dictitorial leadership. As for false pretenses by Bush and Co. I don't know what you mean by that. As for managing the war I like most americans just assumed that living free is the goal of all humanity and the post war era would naturally resolve it self. It has been a bitter pill to swallow and doesn't bode well for the future of any global continuity. In perfect hindsight it appears we should probably abandon our concern for human rights and equality out side of our borders and become isolationist correcting and perfecting our own social needs and to hell with the rest of civilization. Hows that for a solution.... I got mine pull the ladder up type of mentality.

Well I think by false pretenses, she may have meant the utter and complete LIES about WMD? When there never were any? When all but good puppy Blair told him to stay out? When he had planned to invade Iraq before 9/11, and only needed an excuse? That's what I took Carolyn to mean by false pretenses.

Sam,

Halliburton doesn't have exclusive rights to oil in Iraq and we only get 5% of their oil as it is. Up from 0% pre war. Denying a company its incentive to make money is a slippery slope that capitalism and free enterprize can not afford to ski on. Whats next --- Mattel can only make 5 % profit on monopoly games? or maybe we hit Burger King for no more than a nickle profit per hamburger.

As for the fired prosecuters.. they can be fired for having tacky sunglasses. Heck Clinton fired all 93 prosecuters at the same time. I don't remember any flap about that. Presidents get to have their legal team on any grounds they choose, thats just the way it works since the beginning. The sad thing is that Bush doesn't seemed to understand all he has to say is I don't like them and the issue goes away.

Jennifer,

Well that would mean she doesn't have a grasp of reality wouldn't it!

Looks like Vicky W. was busy checking out the hot boys in class during Civics 101 instead of paying attention to the teacher.

"Taking the 5th" doesn't allow you to just not answer any question you don't like, Sweetiepie - it means that you would have to implicate yourself as a criminal if you answered.

There are consequences for not answering questions in court for any other reason than self-incrimination (Self-incrimination means "being a tattle-tale about your own wrong doings") Refusing to answer when instructed to do so by a judge can get you thrown into jail for contempt of court. You may remember that the journalist in the Irving Lewis Libby trial had been in jail for not revealing her sources to a judge? That would be why she was jailed - contempt of court.

I'm sure lil' Vicky has already gone off to ogle the hotties again however...

Cute how Capt. Seaweed tries to derail the conversation with his hackneyed dittohead hyperbole.

Carolyn, Bush didn't get us there alone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE

"ts her choice to take the 5th"

Only if her testimony will incriminate her. She cannot take the 5th because she doesn't feel like testifying, or because the BI-PARTISAN committee grilling her might ask her difficult questions.

Now, the question remains, if she wishes to plead the 5th because she's convinced that her testimony will incriminate her in an investigation into possible criminal activity, what does that say about our justice dept?




"Heck Clinton fired all 93 prosecuters at the same time. I don't remember any flap about that."

Maybe that's because it's standard operating procedure for president's to replace ALL presidential appointees upon first taking office, and ALL of them are vetted and approved by the senate. Bush also replaced all after he stole office, and I don't recall hearing any fuss about that, do you?

The issue isn't that the president has no authority to do this. The issues are that

1) this was done without senate approval,
2) They appear to have been done for partisan reasons, and some may even have entered the realm of "obstruction of justice,"
3) The white house has changed its story several times regarding the justification for the action
4) The attorney general has lied under oath in front of congress about it
5) The president has refused to allow his top aides to testify under oath, adding to the suspicion that something illegal was done
6) A 16 day gap appears in the ream of emails that the white house provided
7) 100 pages of email documents were redacted
8) It appears that some members of the white house have been using RNC-provided email accounts, in order to bypass congressional oversight, a violation of federal law, if true.
9) There is now evidence to suggest that the firings and replacement of these very competent attorneys with political hacks was only partisan in nature, but may well have been to set up investigations of democratic presidential candidates in key swing states during the 2008 campaign.

See, it's just a TEENSY bit different than Clinton, and there's just a TEENSY bit of disturbing facts about this that demand a full, public accounting of exactly what's been going on. Surely, there should be no problem with finding all of the facts, assuming the white house has done nothing wrong.

As for the Clinton comparison, I thought that republicans hated the man. Why is it that he's used as justification for things that Bush does, if you hate him so? Isn't that just a tad hypocritical of you?

The sad thing isn't that Bush could just say "I didn't like them" and this would go away. He could've done that INITIALLY, but he sure as hell can't now, after his whole staff have been caught lying about it, and he's stubbornly refusing to allow top aides to testify under oath. EVERYTHING about this now smacks of coverup, and as I recall, that's precisely what brought Tricky Dick down. Let's not forget that this white house contains some of the same slimey assholes that infested that corrupt administration as well.

By false pretenses I mean things like the nuclear material from Niger story which by now everyone knows Mr. Bush knew was false when he made the claim in his state of the union address. False pretenses includes deleting entirely or downplaying analysts reports that call the whole WMD argument into question. False pretense means claiming not only that Saddam had huge stockpiles of WMD, but also that we knew exactly where at least some of them were. False pretenses is pretending to believe that Saddam was intent upon attacking the U.S. I believe the term used was "Imminent danger." False pretenses means telling the public about stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and an active and nearly successful nuclear program. False pretenses means insisting that aluminum tubing that the administration was told was not the right size/gauge/etc. was for centrifuges. False pretenses means telling people of mobile weapons laboratories. False pretenses means continually trying to tie the 9/11 attacks and Saddam while knowing full well that your own intelligence community concluded that no such connection exists.

I could go on, but you can see why many of us are pretty cynical. What I find even more onerous than all the lies, half truths, etc. we were fed as a run up to this war is the realization that Mr. Bush apparently never had any sort of plan for an extended occupation and when things went really sour he continued to cling to his great hero and bringer of freedom to the oppressed peoples of the middle east fantasy well beyond the point that any rational person would have decided to change course and actually act.

Fortunately for this country, the vast majority of Americans now see this whole war for what it was and Mr. Bush's chicanery for what it was. Remember, had he merely been mistaken in his assumptions regarding Iraq rather than delusional, he would have recognized he was wrong, admitted it, and changed course to ensure that law and order was restored and the insurgency suppressed. If that had happened, the civil war probably would have never happened.

Clark...
mark this day as the day you learned something. Not all republicans hate Clinton as you assume, and he [Clinton} was not brought up as a justification he was brought up as an example of how business is conducted by Presidents as reguards the handling of Federal Prosecutors. If you would have read my entire post with a clear mind you would have realised that.

Carolyn...
Some where between the "Bush lied and people died" crowd and the Iraqis General Sada who claims the WMDs went to Syria in planes and trucks is a truth that inquiring minds are willing to examine. Perhaps you can start your inquireries by asking the Kurds or the Iranians if they think there were WMDs.

Heres a thought... Do you think the Clinton Administration set Bush up by confirming all the international intellegence on WMDs when he took office [and after 9/11 as well] so they good embarass him later and play politics with our soldiers lives??

Capt. Seaweed? I don't honestly care what the Kurds and the Iranians believed in terms of WMD. I don't expect either of them to have anywhere near the intelligence capacity that the United States has.

To answer your question: I don't think that Clinton had anything to do with this. I think that the intelligence Bush used was very old and he ignored the newer assessments. Even if it was absolutely 100% true that Saddam had WMD at one time in the past does not justify waging a war years later based on old intelligence. The issue never was if Saddam at one time had WMD. The only issue was whether he had them at the time we invaded.

If the answer to that is "we don't know" then there should have been no invasion. If the answer was "some intelligence thinks that he still does but a lot more think he no longer does and we don't know for sure" then there should not have been an invasion. The only reason to invade would be if the intelligence said "we're like 90% or so certain he still has them and is preparing to use them against us." There is and never was anyone, even Mr. Bush who made that claim.

Carolyn,

Wake up.. Sadam gased the Kurds and the Iranians. I think that qualifies them as experts on weather they existed or not.

And I believe the quote you are trying not to remember is " Dont' worry. It's a slam dunk." Tennant to Pres. Bush when ask how reliable the intellegence on WMDs was. You really need to pay more attention to whats going on around you.

Captain? The key word in your sentence is "existed." If you know much about the English language you realize that is past tense. Nobody is denying that he had them at one time. It's immaterial if he had them at one time. The only thing that matters is if he actually had them at the time we decided to invade using his possession of them and imminent intention to use them on us as an excuse.

I am not trying to remember any quote. We already know that Tenent's slam dunk assurance was so much bull droppings. You really need to pay more attention to what really happened rather than trying to make alibis for bad judgment and poor decisions, with even poorer follow up.

Carolyn,

Well How about these quotes then...

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, September 23,2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

I can go on and on and on and on and on and on and on with endless quotes from leader after leader from America and just about every NATO nation in the world. Why are you living in denial about the evidense and intell about WMDs. Beings you seem to have bought into the short term memory loss crowd I would suggest you pick up General Sadas book and read it so you can get the other extreme version from an Iraqi insider and then maybe you will have a clearer picture of whats been happing on this issue for the last 5 years.

Umm, I'm pretty sure those quotes, Capt, are assurances based on lies that were fed the senators by the Bush administration. They were lied to. We were lied to.
Yes, Carolyn, that's exaclty the false pretenses I was talking about.

Those quotes, as Jennifer says, were based on the lies that Mr. Bush fed the congress to get them to approve the war in the first place. Heck, we were all deceived. Even I believed we needed to go in because of what I read and heard. However, the truth is out there now and those who were lied to and believed it no longer are being deceived.

Did Saddam have WMD at one time? Yes. Did he have them when we invaded? Absolutely not. Should we have known that? Yes, or we should never have gone in.

I'm sorry Captain, but once you get caught in a lie or in twisting intelligence to suit your agenda you have destroyed your credibility and even if later you were to be telling the absolute truth, nobody is ever going to believe you again. That's the danger and the ultimate penalty for lying as Mr. Bush has done.

There is 100% no question whatever that Mr. Bush was told not only by Mr. Wilson but by numerous other people within the intelligence community that the Niger connection was a forgery well before he used it as one of his justifications for the war. He knew it was a lie and said it anyway. If someone will lie, and that lie causes the deaths of tens of thousands of people, why would anyone ever believe anything they said again? He was not "mistaken." He knew and he lied. That's unforgivable.

Thanks for sharing.

You people are unbelievable. Those comments were made from direct knowledege and reading of the intell reports by every major intellegence agency on the planet and if you can get any one of them to state that they made their assessment based on heresay and not acknowledged accepted intell you will have cracked a front page story that will push Woodward and Bernstien off the face of the journalistic iconism.

You are sadly so out of touch with reality it will be more the pity when you realise the water is boiling and you didn't jump out of the pan fast enough. But fear not you seem to have lots of company and the rest of us will still be willing to catch you as you fall and save you from yourself.

The delusional ones are the 10-15% remaining who still believe everything Mr. Bush says is gospel truth even when he admits openly that he lied.

I think your 10 to 15 % figure is high I reckon it is no more than 2% if that.

As for him lying about WMDs your should either provide the quote and sourse or withdraw quietly to avoid embarassing yourself any further.

That is assuming I am embarrassed in the first place. You know what they say about assuming. I cannot embarrass myself "further" when I am not the slightest bit embarrassed in the first place. Nice try though.

You've seen the quotes. You have to have seen Mr. Cheney pointing to exactly where huge stockpiles were "known" to be. Feel free to believe that there are actually still huge stockpiles of wmd and nobody has found them. You could be right. It could snow in August in Baghdad too. The odds are just a bit long.

Mr. Bush has admitted there are no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. It's only diehards like you who still believe they're going to be found.

That won't cut it Ms.G.

You said Bush admited "openly that he lied" about the WMDs. Show me the statement.

By the way I never said I believed there were stock piles of WMD nor that I think they will be found. Your reality is founded on so much supposition of unsubstantiated theory its hard to have a coherent conversation with you. What I said was General Sada claims they [WMDs] were moved to Syria. Perhaps you should have a conversation with him.

Fortunately for me I don't have to worry about whether what I believe cuts it with you or those of you who so adamantly and continuously support Mr. Bush and his war. You are constantly harping on the WMD so it's natural to believe that you think they're there. Why else would you still be supporting Mr. Bush's disaster?

I'm confused by your "logic." You are now saying you don't believe there were WMD stockpiles or they will be found, but you want me to accept the unsubstantiated word of an Iraqi General with an axe to grind, and you miss the main point in what you/he are saying.

We went to war because Saddam had WMD, chemical, and biological stockpiles and was preparing to use them against us and his neighbors. It doesn't really matter if those weapons were moved to Timbuktu or the moon or whether they had simply been destroyed as other Iraqi sources tell us they were. The bottom line is that the claim of these weapons was not true. The reasons to go to war with another country cannot be based on suppositions and falsehoods. It has to be based on the truth. All we had was the messianic delusions of Mr. Bush and doctored, cherry picked, or downright lies.

Mr. Bush stated in his state of the union address that Saddam had attempted to purchase yellow cake uranium from Niger. Not only did he know that this was a lie, he also knew that Saddam had huge stockpiles of the stuff already and didn't need any more. What he needed were the facilities and science to extract it. This wasn't a mistake. A mistake is when you say something and it turns out that, despite what you believed, not to be true. Mr. Bush had been told this story was a forgery before he said it.

Harry. The most believable theory I've seen thus far regarding the so-called WMD stockpiles is that either Saddam ordered them destroyed with the full intention of simply buying bigger, better, and more modern ones once the sanctions were lifted or that they never existed in the first place, but that the military told Saddam they did in order to cover their own backsides regarding where the money that was supposed to pay for all the weapons went. Presumably it went into their own pockets.

Even Mr. Bush has stated that no WMD stockpiles exist in Iraq and that none existed at the time we invaded, so it really confuses me as to why the diehard Bushies still insist that they're not only there but will be found. Presumably the weapons inspectors did their jobs and/or those weapons were destroyed during the long period after the first gulf war. We know that the so-called nuclear program was more wishful thinking than fact.

Thanks for not providing the quote Carolyn. Your intellectual dishonesty has been duely noted. Perhaps in the future if you learn to converse without erronious conclusions about those you are conversing with and learn to back up your positions with factual evidence I might consider engaging you in another discussion But as long as you make outragesous statements [based on what appears to be emotion and not fact] there is really no reason to continue. Instead, for now you, will have to live with and probably promote yet another false conclusion. It is your intolerrent close minded bias that is so disturbing not your misguided conclusions of the middle eastern situation.

Captain Dear? I do not give a rat's fuzzy backside whether you like what I say or not, nor do I care if you choose to speak to me or not. I have carefully followed this entire fiasco. Entire books have been written about the mess we're in and the lies. Read Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack or State of Denial if you want the facts. Facts, By the way that even the White House has not disputed.

Mr. Bush has acknowledged publicly that the Niger papers were forgeries. Since we know that he knew this before his state of the union address and chose to use the claim anyway, can you please explain how it was anything but a lie?