2007-11-20 11:30:09 · 15 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It depends on the upcoming details. It sounds like Cheney can be nailed completely, but Bush is protected by an unsurety that he actually participated in the cover up and might have just been a clueless participant (imagine that). But, there will undoubtably more ferreting out of details to come, and someone else with pertinent information may be persuaded to come out with it since McClellan has done so.
2007-11-20 11:43:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They should be but they won't be.
Matthew R (above answerer) calls McClellan a 'political hack'.
Interesting McClellan was the W.H. Press Secretary. So it can be concluded that because he felt betrayed by those he believed in and trusted and put his reputation and livelihood on the line for this makes him a political hack?????
Maybe in your deluded world but in the real world it makes Scott McClellan a brave and pissed off and betrayed Bush supporter.
When people inside the circle tell painful truths it's always the first response of damage control to attack the messenger even if the message is true and the messenger reputable.
This illumination by McClellan is only one in a long line of truths that call into question the deeds and misdeeds of the President of the United States and the President's administration!
The American people deserve better and if there is any kind of justice left in America Bush and Cheney should at the very least be questioned about their involvement in purposely leaking information about a CIA operative!!
At any other time in history someone who would leak this type of information would be charged with treason and should be now!!!
2007-11-20 12:08:16 · answer #2 · answered by Kelly B 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
They should be but they wont.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed know that the Republicans will vote against impeachment, therefore they won't even bring it before the floor.
They know that Bush only has one year left, and they fear the political backlash by trying to impeach Bush and Cheney.
But we know that Bush and Cheney are corrupt, when everything comes out, many people will be shocked at the level corruption in this Administration.
2007-11-20 11:44:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm not sure what the legal definition of "treason" is, and whether outing a CIA operative reaches that definition.
I will say this. Regardless of its definition, if it can be proven somehow that Bush and Cheney were somehow responsible for outing someone in the CIA, it will be interesting if a Democratic Congress can successfully make that a case for "high crimes and misdomeanors" as called for by the Constitution for impeachment.
2007-11-20 11:40:27 · answer #4 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The reporter who wrote the article revealing valery plames id replaced into Robert Novak. His source replaced into Dick Armitage, a state branch worker who replaced into against the iraq conflict. Bob Novak advised the particular prosecuter Fitzgerald that his source replaced into Armitage - ideal on the beginning up of the examine. Fitzgerald spent a pair years, and a few million money surely checking out the memories of countless republicans. His purely conviction replaced into Scooter Libby. He gave a distinctive account of what replaced into stated for the period of an interveiw with a reporter. newshounds would have the income remembering, because of the fact they take notes. in case you pay interest to the information over a quantity of time, you would be greater useful waiting to correctly known while politicians and media materials are mendacity to you. you will quickly comprehend that democrat politicians are a gaggle of crooks who will do something to regulate government. spending - it buys them votes.
2016-10-02 04:35:13 · answer #5 · answered by jacobson 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Keep on dreaming liberals. You should know by how Clinton's impeachment failed even though he was guilty of perjury how tough it is to put a president on trial. There is no evidence at all against Bush or Cheney of any wrong doing to charge Bush and Cheney with anything. Scott McClellan is a well know Washington political hack who is just making crap up to help himself out.
The looney left was dreaming for a while of impeaching Bush on the Iraq war, which they had a slightly better case on than this meaningless CIA leak nonsense (not that they had a case on either issue). In the end the looney left decided not to try to charge Bush with anything and to just serve his second term out in peace. The reason is that the Democrats know that any charges against Bush and Cheney would seem to be the cheap political ploy it is and would cause the nation to rally against the Democrats in 2008. See what happened to the Republicans in 1998 after they impeached Clinton and Clinton (unlike Bush / Cheney) was guilty.
2007-11-20 11:46:49 · answer #6 · answered by Matthew R 2 · 3⤊ 6⤋
We are too apathetic and numb to wrongdoing to actually make this stick enough to bring charges against these 2 criminal "democracy rapers". It would bring me great joy and a wonderful sense of justice if we did make it happen.
2007-11-21 14:41:04 · answer #7 · answered by Tuckstop 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Throw in charges for torturing suspects for good measure. An Asst. Attorney General told Bush that waterboarding is torture. Bush fired him.
2007-11-20 11:35:10 · answer #8 · answered by CaesarLives 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
No, because the next administration may wish to commit treason also.
2007-11-20 11:39:12 · answer #9 · answered by . 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
They will probably weasel out of it but at least all the Bushbots will have to eat their words. Although some will now change their song from "Bush didn't do it" to " Bush was not convicted for doing it".
2007-11-20 11:39:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋