Cheney Shoots Hunting Partner; Senators Call For Investigation
Okay, I scrambled up the order of events in that headline for comic effect (and shame on me – it’s not funny that a man was shot, and let’s hope Harry Whittington has a full, complete recovery). It is true, however, that both a Republican and a Democratic senator have called for Fitzgerald to – well, to do I’m not sure what…I mean, isn’t he supposed to have already covered this ground?
Nevertheless:
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald should investigate Vice President Dick Cheney and others in the CIA leak probe if they authorized an aide to give secret information to reporters, Democratic and Republican senators said Sunday.
Sen. Jack Reed , D-R.I., called the leak of intelligence information “inappropriate” if it is true that unnamed “superiors” instructed Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, to divulge the material on Iraq.
Sen. George Allen, R-Va., said a full investigation is necessary.
“I don’t think anybody should be releasing classified information, period, whether in the Congress, executive branch or some underling in some bureaucracy,” said Allen, who appeared with Reed on “Fox News Sunday.”
Well, George, that’s a nice, strong, easily agreed upon sentiment for someone who’s trying to gain attention for his 2008 bid…but color me unimpressed, again…What was Fitz doing, if not investigating these very matters?…
I guess the call is for Fitzgerald to widen his probe from the leak of Valarie Plame’s identity to the release of the NIE info…but since this latest revelation comes from a Fitzgerald-generated document, I can only assume he has already done at least some investigating…
Boggles the mind doesn’t it? I was under the impression the VP had the authority to declassify the kind of stuff that was leaked to Libby if he wanted to. Is that not true?
No, the Vice President does not have the authority, on his own initiative, to declassify the NIE. At the very least, the decision to declassify has to be approved by the CIA, which generated the classified information contained in the NIE.
Comrades,
Since the CIA works for the executive branch, it is subservient to both the VP and the President. Now, the VP may NOT have the authority to declassify some items, but the President DOES have that authority.
The more disconcerning thing, though, is how the CIA wants to be responsible to no one. In fact, from just those reports from Ms. Plame and the current smegma who is complaining about POTUS, it seems that the CIA already sees itself as it’s own boss, immune from reality. If Valerie Plame specifically sent her husband to generate false intelligence, and if a CIA employee DID leak information to the press, then both of them ought to be hauled out of there, and hung.
Intentionally misrepresenting intelligence, in order to undermine a sitting President is nothing short of treason and should be dealt with accordingly.
It’s going to be interesting to see who the NYT got their info from vis-a-vis the NSA stories. I hope whoever they are has a good lawyer, cause they are going to need one… or more…
Respects,
Gwedd
“Misrepresenting intelligence, in order to undermine a sitting President is nothing short of treason and should be dealt with accordingly.”
That brings up an interesting question. Paul Pillar, who was in charge of intelligence on Iraq until last year, was quoted this weekend saying that the pre-war intelligence did not support the administration’s push to war, and intelligence was selectively used to publicly justify a decision which had already been made.
If the President misrepresented intelligence, what should the consequences be?
From the opposition’s perspective, impeachment hearings should begin immediately against the President. Time for the Dems to finally stop posturing and show the country the true nature of their convictions. No more bluffing, just do it or fold your hand.
I noticed that the only sitting Dem that would appear on Meet the Press this morning was Harman. Quite a show of conviction here on this issue, eh?
Is that to say that
1) You believe that Impeachment is warranted (ie, that the President broke the law in order the NSA program)?
Or
2) You see impeachment as a cudgel with which to beat one’s political opponents, and want to find out if the Democrats are strong enough to wield it?
(There’s also the possibility that you believe the accusation to be false, while acknowledging that the Dems believe it to be true. You’d like them to go forward with impeachment because … Well, let’s just call this a subcase of 2).)
Personally, I’m fairly convinced that the law was broken (so are a lot of conservatives: Bob Barr, Grover Norquist, …). But many people (including many Democrats) are still willing to give the President the benefit of doubt on this one. Hence, in my opinion, the need for more hearings …
Besides, there were intriguing hints in the Gonzalez testimony that the NSA program revealed by the NYT was not the only domestic spying program authorized by the President.
So I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop…
Jacq
Jacques, I believe in the scenario subset #2 that you outlined above. The Dems have been throwing around this grenade for quite awhile now, and I’d like to see them go through with it, just to see where everything would land at the end of the process.
Although I believe Clinton needed to be censured after lying under oath, I thought the impeachment trial was ill – considered and was borne out of the GOP’s irrational frustration with his electoral success. The country gained nothing from the process, since the administration was distracted from the business of running the country for quite some time.
I believe the same dynamic would be in play today if the Dems went forward with this action, but of course the stakes are much higher at present, at least if you believe that we’re currently in a war.
Seems to me that’s a pretty strong aregument for not bringing impeachment proceedings unless the facts of the case really merit it. This is hardly a time to be playing partisan political games (not that — we apparently agree — it was a good idea in Clinton’s case either).