Of course, it's always possible Cheney & Co will spend a few years in prison & Bush will pardon them at the end of his term. I could live with that.
Others have reached back in their memories to when President Richard Nixon ordered Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox fired when he insisted on obtaining the secret White House tapes. In the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre," the Attorney General and his deputy both resigned rather than carry out the order, but future Supreme Court reject Robert Bork was only too happy to comply. As I imagine Alberto "Geneva convention? What Geneva convention?" Gonzales would be.
Could President Bush fire Fitzgerald? Of course he could, but would he? Again, the question is, can Bush expend the political capital he would lose making such a self-serving move? Remember, according to some, it was the fallout from firing Cox that made calls for Nixon's impeachment overwhelm his Presidency.
Can Bush afford such a risk, with only seven out of 50 states currently giving him a positive approval rating? I tend to think that he can't, but acknowledge that this may be wishful thinking on my part.
So: Here's The News Blog with a post that responds and links to, and quotes from, posts from billmon and John Dean. Dean thinks Fitzgerald won't prosecute, TNB (and billmon) disagree:
What also needs to be understood is that if there are indictments, serious political damage would have been done. It's not Watergate, this is national security and the idea that aides to the President and VP violated national security for a political grudge is intensely damaging.
Given Bush's record, people keep looking for the deus ex machina. The problem is that there probably isn't one. Bush is in a tight position and he can't bail out Rove and friends without taking a hit, and Bush doesn't take hits for himself, much less staff.
I think TNB is right; but, as they also both say, Dean has been right about a lot of this, and deserves a hearing. Reads and makes up your own minds.
No comments:
Post a Comment