Rove on the stand

Marion in Savannah @ 158

A naive question:

Even if on the stand and under oath does anyone seriously think that Turdblossom will tell the truth? Seriously… Would he take an oath to tell the truth seriously?

No. But Rove is boxed in quite a bit by his GJ testimony. Fitz presumably has gleened a good bit of info from Rove which will leave Bush’s Brain with limited wiggle room.
If you recall, Rove kept going and going to see the Fitz and it was hopeful that Rove would be indicted. Alas he was not.

Actually, Sealed vs. Sealed is still sealed. I think it’s better than even money that it’s U.S. vs Rove. Rove understood that elements of this are a capital crime and he didn’t want the ax to fall on him so he SANG. If no when he testifies he must deliver specific testimony incriminating others. I’d bet my bottom dollar that means a Cheney trial.

this is tony blankley’s email

http://www.kcrw.com/news/progr…..ill_releva

this is where he tells us that the wrong doings of this administration (in regards to Cheney) may be morally wrong but not illegal

http://dir.salon.com/story/new…..ex_np.html

this is whats on the plate so far for the administration…

TiredFed – Sorry, the fact that he is a dolt doesn’t mean that he isn’t the dolt in charge. As much as we might like to believe the meme doesn’t make it true.

semantics

Oklahoma kiddo @ 15

Everybody says they want ‘real leadership’. Has Hillary shown real and strong leadership over the last six years? Now I ask you?

She’s led the protractor corps – triangulating the way behind….

Renee in Ohio @ 6

Hillary Clinton, bleh. I do not like her in a boat, I do not like her with a goat…

[snip]

Seems Billary didn’t either – hence the separate digs.

DISH!!!

Pre-Trial Hearing, paraphrased

Fitz: We’re not planning on calling Cheney.

Wells: We’ve asked him to testify, a subpeona is not necessary.

Fitz: That settles that.

So if it comes to pass, remember to thank Theodore Wells for his gift to us, a Dick in a box.

please try to remember: Cheney is in charge. Has been since he “nominated” himself for VP. Bush is an empty suit. Has there ever been any real evidence to indicate otherwise? Read Paul O’Neill’s book, or Richard Clarke’s, or just about anything blessed Molly Ivins has written. Shrub is a dolt; a figurehead. Cheney is the true power behind the throne (in some cases, he actually shares the throne – remember how he rewrote the reg on classifying and declassifying documents?)

I agree with all of your comment except the empty suit description of GB as it relates to DC. The Bush41-Cheney-Rummy friendship also has its roots in the CIA and back in a time when behavior control was a big goal. The entire Bush admin appears to be based on that control dynamic and secrecy.

I think DC has played George to perfection as all of them have.

Adie @ 154

scarecrow.

What danger do you think there could be that, given the expansion of & imperialization of our former presidency under this admin., veep could, if he goes completely ’round the bend mentally, take some horrendous action using executive power (e.g., strike agnst another country) simply by sidestepping the prez.?

apologies. hate to bother you with what might seem an insane question. i’m not so sure we’re safe enuf to ignore such thots at this time.

I don’t think we’re in Dr. Strangelove territory. There is enough incompetence, delusion, misconceptions, ideological blinders, etc, to be sure; but (I hope) not total insanity. And if the VP were nuts,and tried to do something unilateral, I have no reason to believe that the military folks would follow orders not endorsed by the President. So I guess I’m saying there is still some rationality left, some minimal respect for the Constitution at some level that might save us from a complete nut. I read the Pentagon’s reluctance to endorse the surge unless they were given clear, finite, achievable objectives as one sign of this, and the willingness of retired generals to speak out as another, and the increasing play given by the MSM to the opposition as yet another. There are bits of light out there, but I wish there were more.

Isn’t the Libby trial a perfect example of how the VP office misdirected us into Iraq? He works in the shadows and presents the argument to the prez in a way that is almost guaranteed to get the results the VP wants. He appears to be a master of controlling people and events.

He’s making the rounds now to familiarize the media with his ‘no response’ answers to acclimate them to his upcoming testimony.

…just my opinion and speculation, of course.