Libby fingers Bush: How will the RNC debate Iraq while avoiding impeachable offenses?
The RNC wants to debate Iraq. Libby’s testimony before the Grand Jury shows Bush was behind the leaks on Iraq. The RNC can only be serious about an Iraq debate if they address the assumptions behind the Iraq invasion and planning: False information which Libby linked to one person -- the President of the United States. Indeed, if the RNC is serious in 2006 about a debate on Iraq, they should be serious about impeachable offenses.
America supposedly invaded Iraq to bring law and order. How will the RNC leadership in Congress impose law and order at home in the White House? How they answer -- and what they do or don't do -- will tell Americans whether they are serious about leadership and having a debate; or avoiding leadership and the President's impeachable offenses.
Links: "Bush Authorized Plamegate Leak": Bush and Cheney fully involved on Libby's July 8 revelation to Miller on Plame identify [Click ]; Libby fingers Bush, approved leak of Plame to NYT's Miller: [ Click
FitzgeraldOne of the key conversations that will be proved at trial took place between defendant and
reporter Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel on the morning of July 8, 2003.Ref: 22 of 39, Response to Libby]
Review this quote, what the NIE and Bush smearing are really about:
I will provide a cause for the warSource]
Whether true or not is irrelevant for propaganda purposes
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted on plaque at Auschwitz
The RNC wants to debate Iraq. Also, Libby's announced that Bush was behind the leaks on Iraq.
Call your RNC elected officials, and let them know you support a debate on Iraq and their plan to discuss the impeachable offenses.
Ask your RNC leadership about the Libby revelations and the following clauses in the Constitution related to Iraq:
Article 1 Section 8: Exclusive congressional powers
Article III Section 2: Judicial role on matters of treaties
Article II Section 3: Executive responsibility to enforce the law
Libby’s testimony before the Grand Jury is an opportunity. Libby’s statements before the Grand Jury show that the President lied about Iraq to violate US treaties. This is a matter under Article III Section 2 to be brought before the court. Indeed, the President has already lied about Iraq before the court in 2003.
It remains to be understood how the RNC plans to talk about Iraq without talking about the Executives violations of the law. The President illegally self-delegated exceptions to the law to mobilize the nation for and illegal war. He knew what he was doing: Violating the Constitution.
The White House connection to the false information on Iraq showed the White House had a clear goal to undermine Article 1 Section 8 powers of Congress on the basis of fraud; and ignored the Executive's responsibility under Article II Section 3 to enforce the statutes, not circumvent the law based on fraud.
This Executive shows he is not willing to comply with the law. He’s ignored the FISA court. How does Congress plan to discuss Iraq without pointing to what is self-evident: The basis for war in Iraq hinges on impeachable offenses, and Libby’s testimony shows us the President knew full well what he was doing.
We welcome the RNC attempt to have a serious discussion about Iraq, and the impeachable offenses related to Article I Section 8, Article II Section 3, and Article III Section 2.
It is impossible for the RNC to discuss anything related to Iraq unless they are serious about discussing impeachable offenses. The Congress relied on this false information; the country was deceived into an illegal war; and Bush knew that the statements were false, and that the war was not linked with any imminent threat required to satisfy the law.
If the RNC does not discuss these issues, the public will see that the RNC is not serious about discussing Iraq. Rather, they are serious about having a phony debate about matters that should be well discussed: Whether there is or is not enough evidence to charge the President with impeachable offenses.
If the RNC wants to debate Iraq but they refuse to discuss the impeachable offenses, then they are not serious about leading the country or protecting the Constitution. Rather, they are serous about avoiding their oaths. They are not fit to govern.
Added 9:45P EST 6 April 2006: Now the quibbling starts, but simply raises new questions.
CNN corrected the claim to more accurately reflect the content of the testimony, noting that it was Vice President Dick Cheney who Libby testified had told him the President had ok'ed the leak of classified information relating to pre-war intelligence. This means the President did not directly, by Libby's account, authorize him to leak classified information.Raw
OK, so the President indirectly through Cheney -- as Bush would have confidence Cheney would do -- got Libby to do something that was not lawful, disclose information with full knowledge it was false, misleading, and disclosed information to reveal a CIA agents' names.
This is merely an excuse, and does nothing to defend the President. Rather, given this is the "best that they can offer," we can only ask new questions:
Added: 10:50P EST, 6 April 2006
Issue: Caught on tape, admissible: Cheney and Libby contradict eachother: Cheney's transcript on Fox shows he was trying to keep the President out of the picture; Libby did the opposite by implicating the President.
Recall these words:
"If it turns out that Cheney was actively involved in decisions related to the disclosure of a CIA officer's identity, and if the truth of it is that he was orchestrating the disclosure of information to the media, it seems to me that's a fundamentally different case than one centered around the activities of Libby." -- Former Whitewater independent counsel Robert RayRef Google
The Mess
Rather than focusing on whether there is or is not a crime, the apologists are saying that the leak was permissible. That makes no sense. They're trying to argue that the revelation of a CIA agent identify is somehow the same as declassifying information. That's non-sense.
"Data and the release of that data" is not the same as exposing the identify of an undercover agent. [ Click ] Cheney asserted that it was "OK" for Libby to have done what he did, and that Cheney had the power to declassify the information -- leaving us with the impression that the President was not involved. [ CLick ] [ Check the transcript of Cheney's appearance on Fox before 26 Feb 2006. Click ]
Now we know that Cheney was trying to make it look like Bush was out of the picture, but Libby has told us otherwise. It remains to be seen what Cheney has told the Grand Jury or Fitzgerald that was misleading: Who was involved; whose decision it was; and whether it was or was not appropriate.
At this point, none of their stories add up, and it's a feeding frenzy.
Sidetracks: Media Matters monitors the red herrings: click and Conyers asks the right question: When is Bush going to fire himself of this? [ Click ]
<< Home