Posted on 11/28/2005 11:38:14 AM PST by Hadean
Leakgate accuser Joe Wilson hinted at the prospect of impeachment Monday morning while discussing the "betrayal of national security" entailed by the outing of his CIA employee-wife, saying that he hoped the case wouldn't result in "a constitutional crisis."
Asked if he thought the leaking of his wife's name by Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby was sanctioned by White House higher-ups, Wilson told WABC Radio's "Curtis & Kuby":
"It is clear that Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove were acting - but whether they were acting independently or not is something for [Leakgate prosecutor Patrick] Fitzgerald to determine."
Wilson then explained: "It does strike me that, normally in an organization, the chief of staff does not act completely separate from his principal."
Adopting a tone of mock regret, the aggrieved ex-diplomat declared: "Now I would hope, of course, that this tawdry political act of illegality and betrayal of national security does not become a constitutional crisis."
Asked what actual damage his wife had suffered since she was not undercover at the time of her outing, Wilson declined to respond directly, saying only:
"[Bush officials] decided that they were going to use the enormous power of the White House communications office to try to destroy us. I have had no choice but to defend myself."
her cover was blown in Europe and that is why she was brought back home. It is also believed that her noc cover was blown in a Cuba screwup somewhere along the line (can't recall those details on my PC files right now).
I'm holding out for him getting hit by a truck.
Awwww... poor Joe is just upset because he didn't get what he wanted for Fitzmas!
ha ha ha ha.
1. If election day 2005 was election day 2006, we would probably have lost the House, for anybody who is paying attention. It's unlikely we lose the house in 2006 (provided the GOP works on its image problem), but it's not 'almost impossible' for the Rats to take it.
2. True, I forgot about the 2/3 majority needed for conviction and even the most ambitious dem victory in the Senate wouldn't lead to 67 seats. I mentioned that in an earlier post. Still, the president would lose the vote and be badly damaged from that loss.
3. Polls do matter in that public perception impacts leadership.
Be his fault for p/oing the conservative base. Next time a Republican is handed the Presidency with a Republican Congress, he needs to do something worthwhile - not just piss it away - or spend like and legislate like a Democrat.
We in the newly minted minority will just have to pray for gridlock.
I didn't say it would be right. I didn't say it would be fair. I did say a dem House would impeach the President.
That's not at all inconsistent with what you wrote.
That's part of it, yep.
Just a rhetorical question, from one who lives in a red state: if Valerie were in such danger after being outed, why in the heck is she smiling for the cameras at Vanity Fair?
No need to answer...
What a turd...
I will work for a 'Pubbie candidat,e or contribute to him, if he deserves it, not otherwise. Gonna have to check up on Mr. Nathan Deal.
Don't watch TV so it won't bother me much. If the President doesn't have the guts and ruthlessness to muscle his way out of impeachment that is his problem. Try pardoning Libby, for starters and tell the Democrats and their followers where the go.
Guess it's of no importance at all that there are NO charges against Libby for revealing the plamedame's name.
"Asked what actual damage his wife had suffered since she was not undercover at the time of her outing, Wilson declined to respond directly"
Where is the follow-up to this question? Why is no one really grilling this guy? Oh, that's a rhetorical question.
If that were to happen, it would be a declaration of civil war.
I would hit the streets, and a lot of my friends also.
Even Democrats are not that stupid!
Hey, hang your hat on Wilson at your peril!
Nobody in any significant numbers would hit the streets in civil war. What are you talking about?
No argument from me there. That being said, it doesn't undermine what I wrote.
Never has so much been made of so little. Next thing you know they'll be accusing Repubs of putting arsenic in the water...Oh, wait, they've already done that.
Maybe not in New York.
There's a good analysis today on realclearpolitics.com as to why the GOP will not lose the House in 2006, though your opinion is as valid as anyone's this far out.
I am more concerned about the Senate. And you won't believe this. If you go to the NRSC (National Republican Senatorial Committee) website, and click on the various states on their home page, nearly half of the states have inaccurate information. For example, if you click on Michigan, the NRSC purports to tell you that Senator Levin, not Senator Stabenow, is up for re-election in 2006.
This is a disgrace. My ten-year old could tell you that Senator Stabenow is up next year, and not Senator Levin, and we don't even live in Michigan.
Other states that have inaccurate information on the NRSC website: Maine, Delaware, Minnesota, California, Nebraska, Tennessee, Florida, Indiana, Montana, Maryland, Connecticut and Missouri -- and perhaps others.
An absolute disgrace. Heads should roll. If this is the best leadership that Senator Elizabeth Dole can offer, the GOP majority is in real jeopardy next year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.