NYT Kristof to Cheney: "you should resign."

[Duppers]

>>
Notes of a Reporter at Large: A Modest Proposal
By : Mel Lavine : 2/6/07

Robert Scheer, in a recent column in the San Francisco Chronicle, asks, "How is it possible that a Republican-controlled Congress impeached President Bill Clinton over his attempt to conceal marital infidelity but that a Democratic-led Congress will not even consider impeaching this president for far more serious transgressions against the public trust?"

In making a case for impeaching President Bush, Scheer says revelations in the trial of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, broadly hint of a conspiracy in the highest places of the Bush White House to take the country to war. The outing of CIA agent Valerie Wilson. he says, was only one small part "of a far-ranging plot to deceive Congress and the public about perhaps the most important issue of our time: The prospect of terrorists obtaining a weapon of mass destruction."

Testimony in the Libby trial would seem to cast the vice president in a nefarious light but no one knows of any role Bush played in a plot to deceive the people. All the more reason, Scheer argues, for the question to be explored at an impeachment trial.

It's conceivable that the House, which the Democrats firmly controls, could become so impatient and frustrated with an uncompromising president that it would hasten such a constitutional crisis. But I don't believe that the Democrats would be any more successful in the end than were the Republicans when the predominately Republican House impeached Bill Clinton. The Senate failed to convict and Clinton remained in office. There is no reason to believe that the present Senate, which the Democrats control by a single vote, and where a two-thirds vote is needed for conviction and removal from office, would fare any better.

Nor would the Democrats want to go for the impeachment of the president. The removal of Bush would lead to the elevation of Cheney, an end devoutly to be avoided. And probably by many Republicans, too.

A New York Times columnist, Nicholas D. Kristof, is another conscientious journalist to plumb the "Scooter" Libby trial for evidence of a conspiracy in high places to sell the war.

But he isn't advocating impeachment.

He senses from the indictment and trial testimony that by the early summer of 2003 there was panic in Cheney's office when the W.M.D. had failed to materialize. Cheney, he notes, had made the argument in promoting the war that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Enter Ambassador Joseph Wilson who came forward to expose Bush's bogus claim that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger, an African country. An infuriated Cheney looked to the C.I.A. and others to discredit including Wilson. This, Kristof suggests, led to the outing of Wilson's wife. In sum, Libby did not learn of Valerie Wilson from reporters, as Libby had testified, but from his boss.

In his column Tuesday, Kristoff says the trial is raising doubts about the vice president’s integrity. He called on Cheney to resign if the vice president continues to “stonewall” on questions concerning his activities to discredit Joseph Wilson and unmask his wife.

"I'm not accusing you of committing a crime," writes Kristof, addressing Cheney. "But there are serious questions here...If you continue to stonewall, then you don't belong in office and you should resign."

I like the Kristof approach (“Mr. Cheney, Tear Down This Wall”) and the suggestion that the vice president might have to consider stepping down. With all due respect to Robert Scheer, Kristof's is an excellent solution to the country’s dilemma, at least in the short term.
>>

http://www.ebpublishing.com/*ws4d-db-query-Show.ws4d?*ws4d-db-query-Show***GNL-EE-092093093092094097-1392***-Database***-***sltimes(directory)***.ws4d?sltimes/index_column.html




Another good editorial By Nicholas Kristof himself, published a couple of days ago:

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=c3ac6bec-d51a-40b3-a801-b70102a42132

[Duppers]

1. Kristof's editorial

Too good not to post....

>>
Mr. Cheney, It's Time To Stop Stonewalling And Come Clean
By Nicholas D. Kristof

Published on 2/7/2007

At the Republican National Convention in 2000 that nominated him for vice president, Dick Cheney told a rapturous crowd that Democrats “will offer more lectures, and legalisms, and carefully worded denials. We offer another way, a better way, and a stiff dose of truth.”
So, Mr. Cheney, now that the Scooter Libby trial is raising doubts about your own integrity, you owe the nation an explanation. Here are a few questions to help frame your explanation of your activities:

• Mr. Vice President, did you push Libby to dig into Joe Wilson's background and discredit him?

Libby made such a major effort to gather materials from the CIA and State Department about Wilson — both before and after you told him on June 12, 2003, that his wife worked at the CIA — that it seems likely that you commanded the effort. True?

• What did you mean when you wrote, in a note to Scott McClellan that has been entered into evidence, “not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy the Pres. that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others.”

First, you wrote that it was “the Pres.” who had asked Libby to do this, and then you crossed out those two words. Did President Bush indeed ask that Libby take charge of the effort to discredit Ambassador Wilson? And is it true, as was hinted at in the trial, that the White House tried to block the release of this document?

• When you discussed Joe Wilson with Libby on Air Force Two on July 12, 2003, what instructions did you give him?

Trial testimony indicates that on that flight, Libby looked over some questions a reporter had sent in about Wilson and then said: “Let me go talk to the boss and I'll be back.” After consulting with you, Libby later called reporters to feed them a skewed version of Wilson's trip.

• Mr. Cheney, on that plane, did you specifically tell Libby to leak to reporters the fact that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA?

Deborah Bond of the FBI has testified that Libby acknowledged in one of his interviews that on that flight, he might have talked to you about whether to tell the news media about Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. So did he?

Since Libby is renowned for his caution, it seems highly unlikely that he would have leaked classified information twice to reporters right after talking to you, unless you had sanctioned the leak.

• During the leak investigation, were you aware that Libby was telling the FBI apparently false information?

You rode to work with him nearly every day in your limousine, and the issue never came up? Or did you ask Libby to protect you because you didn't want it known that in fact you were the one who had told him about Valerie Plame? Was there some other information you wanted kept secret?

• Were you trying to cover up your own reliance on misinformation about Iraqi WMD by blaming the CIA and anybody else within range, like Wilson?

More than anybody, Mr. Vice President, you made the argument in the run-up to war that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And one senses, in the indictment and trial testimony, that by the early summer of 2003, there was panic in your office that the WMD had failed to materialize.

So when Ambassador Wilson came forward, you seem to have been infuriated. You tried to blame the CIA, and then your office tried to discredit Wilson by arguing that he had simply enjoyed a junket arranged by his wife.

Robert Grenier, a CIA official, told the court that he thought the White House was “trying to avoid responsibility for positions that they took with regard to the truth about whether or not Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger.” So did this all arise from an attempted cover-up?

• So when are you going to come clean?

When Richard Nixon was accused of misusing campaign contributions in 1952, he gave his famous Checkers speech. When questions rose about Spiro Agnew's conduct in 1973, he repeatedly addressed them in public. (Look, you know you're in trouble when the press tries to hold you to the same standards of transparency and integrity as Nixon and Agnew.)

I'm not accusing you of committing a crime. But there are serious questions here, and you owe the nation not legalisms, but that “stiff dose of truth.” If you continue to stonewall, then you don't belong in office and you should resign.

>>

[rodeodance]

2. i had thought he would resign after the election. but..........

[BridgeTheGap]

4. The success of an impeachment

shouldn't be a criterion used in determining whether or not it should happen. The question:
is there enough evidence of "high crimes & misdemeanors" to bring charges. If there is, (and I believe so) then the charges should be brought and proceedings begun. You are probably right that the Repubs won't, in the end, vote to impeach BUT that fact could really hurt them. It would prove that they have no interest in justice being served.
And it should be a package deal - impeach both Bush & Cheney. Clearly, Dick Cheney is responsible for much of the "high crimes & misdemeanors."

[Duppers]

5. I agree!

But do you think this could be some of the Dems' leadership's reasoning? I hope Conyers can light a fire under them.

[texpatriot2004]

3. Or face impeachment Dick! nm