Sen. Hagel says Bush Impeachment is an Option

This is so ridiculous.  Cheney didn't jeopardize any CIA agent.  First off, there is absolutely no proof that Cheney "outed" her.  Secondly she was a desk agent and from the latest hearings she was widely known in DC as a CIA agent. 

Bush is not going to be impeached, get over that now.  There is nothing to impeach him for.


 

I just can't stop laughing. 

This is so ridiculous. Cheney didn't jeopardize any CIA agent. First off, there is absolutely no proof that Cheney "outed" her. Secondly she was a desk agent and from the latest hearings she was widely known in DC as a CIA agent. The release of Mrs. Wilson's status jeopardized any other contacts she had in past operations. The CIA said that and that is why a Special Prosecutor was appointed.

The Libby Trial does prove the involvement of Cheney in the outing of Mrs. Wilson. It was in retaliation for the report by Wilson that Bush and Cheney said not like. It is part of the sworn testimony in the Libby Trial!


That is the position of a Dictator or King.


I just can't stop laughing. You would not be laughing if our country becomes another Cuba, China or North Korea. When one leader substitutes his will for that of the majority, it is a Dictatorship!

In which he couldn't find anything that could pin this so-called "outing" on Cheney.  Face it, you are grasping for straws with these manufactured scandals. 




This is the perfect example of why I don't take you seriously.  You seriously have no clue what it's like in a place like Cuba or North Korea.  If it was even close you wouldn't be allowed to post all your anti-Bush nonsense.

The Presidency is not run on manufactured media polls even though that is how you would like it.  The "will of the people" is expressed every 4 years in a Presidential election.   

Island Dog

“In which he couldn't find anything that could pin this so-called "outing" on Cheney.”

That is NOT what was discovered. The reason Cheney, Rove and Libby were not charged was because the technical requirements of the statute to protect CIA Agents were so complicated.

The testimony and the statements of the Special Prosecutor clearly said Cheney, Rove and Libby were part of the identification of Mrs. Wilson as a reaction to the Amb. Wilson report about the Yellow Cake that Bush and Cheney did not like! It was a political retaliation that put in jeopardy CIA agents and contacts that had dealings with Valery Plame during her years as a CIA operative! Only the technical complication of the law stopped Chaney, Rove and Libby from prostituted for endangering our CIA Agents!

“The Presidency is not run on manufactured media polls even though that is how you would like it. The "will of the people" is expressed every 4 years in a Presidential election.”

No the will of the people is expressed every two years. That will was CLEAR in 2006. The will of the Congress which is elected to represent the will of the people is expressed each time they pass legislation! Bush is ignoring BOTH the will of the electorate as expressed in 2006 and the will of the Congress TODAY! If Bush were to veto a bill that provided funding for the war, it is he not congress that is denying the funding for the war. If it were up to me, each time Bush would veto a bill I would pass another bill with the same provisions until he allowed the WILL of the Congress and the people that elected Congress to become law! The Bill that passed the house contains the funding Bush requested for the war. It also contains the will of the people and Congress to end this war!

LOL.  Cheney was never the focus of the investigation.  Get over it. 




Not for the Presidency.  Democrats didn't have a clear stance on Iraq during the 2006 elections, and democrats won because the so-called conversatives were "punishing" the GOP. 




That bill doesn't contain the "will of the people", get over that nonsense now.  The American people do not want our military to lose.  The only thing that bill contains is more democratic pork in which you seem to have no problem with.

"Cheney was never the focus of the investigation. Get over it. " The Special Prosecutor said in Court that Cheney was involved. The testimony of several witnesses clearly showed Cheney was involved. The memo that Cheney wrote on clearly showed his involvement. You are full of BS!


That bill doesn't contain the "will of the people", get over that nonsense now. That Bill is the Will of the Congress that under our system represents us and passes our laws.As Senator Hagel said, it may be time to make Bush accountable and remove him from office!

Is that the testimony you have been asked repeatedly to prove?




No, that bill is pork and surrender.  Bush is not going to be impeached, there is no grounds for it.  End of story.

Is that the testimony you have been asked repeatedly to prove? It was reported at the time of the trial.

this is one of many stories:

Wednesday, March 07, 2007R. Jeffrey SmithWashington Post
Washington - In a small room on the third floor of the District of Columbia federal courthouse in late March 2004, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald stood before I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and asked him three times whether his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, had discussed telling reporters that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.

The question was not insignificant for Fitzgerald, who saw his mission as revealing the full chain of events behind the security breach involving Plame's work as an undercover CIA officer.

Fitzgerald was unconvinced by Libby's response that even though he "may have" had such a conversation with Cheney, it probably occurred after Plame's identity as a CIA employee had been published in a newspaper column.

Advertisement





Fitzgerald would respond with great frustration in his summation at Libby's trial almost three years later, saying that Libby's lies had effectively prevented him from learning about all of Cheney's actions in the administration's campaign to undermine Plame's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

More than he had previously, Fitzgerald made clear in those remarks that his search for truth about Cheney was a key ambition in his investigation and that his inability to get it was a key provocation for Libby's indictment. Although Cheney was the target, Fitzgerald's investigation could not reach him because of Libby's duplicity.

Fitzgerald's summation explained, in part, why he brought charges based on imperfect evidence against Libby, even though Libby was not a source for Robert Novak, the author of the July 14, 2003, newspaper column that outed Plame as a CIA employee.

The jury's verdict addresses Fitzgerald's first conclusion - that Libby lied deliberately and did not misspeak from faulty memory.

But the trial showed that the prosecutor finished his investigation with his mind made up that Libby's account was meant to hide his own involvement as well as to conceal the potential involvement of the vice president.

At the trial's close, Fitzgerald expressed his concern in unusually blunt terms. After Libby's lawyers complained that he was trying to put a "cloud" over Cheney without evidence to back it up, Fitzgerald told the jury on Feb. 20, "We'll talk straight." There was, he said, "a cloud over what the vice president did" during the period before the publication of Novak's column, and it was created by testimony showing that Cheney directed Libby and others at the White House to disseminate information about Wilson and Wilson's criticisms.

I didn't ask for a Washington Post story, I asked for a transscript of testimony that clearly says Cheney was maliciously involved.

 As usual you are changing the subject from your original post which has lost it's reasoning already.

political hack at work don't seek reason jsut mindless hate.

I didn't ask for a Washington Post story, I asked for transcripts of testimony that clearly says Cheney was maliciously involved.

As usual you are changing the subject from your original post which has lost it's reasoning already. That is pure Bull S**t!!!!!

You can dig out the transcripts. I have PROVEM the truth of what I have said however you and the other Bushies do not care about truth. The current situation with how the Dept. of Justice LIED about why they fired the U.S. Attorneys proves that. Who would say they fired the 1, 4 and 7 performing Attorneys for CAUSE? Now one official in the Justice Dept will take the 5th. I hope Congress gives her a grant of immunity to force her to testify. And Bush wants his top aids intervened in SECRET NOT UNDER OATH AND WITH NO TRANSCRIPT. WHEN PIGS FLY! Time to impeach Bush and Cheney! Just like Donald Trump said, the Bush administration are all liars!

LOL.

The attorney nonsense is another manufactured scandal.  Keep grasping for straws.  You have a great chance of Bush not being re-elected if you keep it up!

No such sworn testimony occurred and no proof of this "motive" has been established.

Impeachment is not a tool for resolution of political differences - God forbid it ever becomes one. That's what elections are for in the U S and A. You want a parliamentary form of government, head to the UK. Senator Hagel would do well to remember that. There are no grounds for impeachment, no matter how many House members "decide what an impeachable offense is" - sure, anyone can sue anyone else for anything, but you know perfectly well that the House will not vote a bill of impeachment based on Bush's political resolve.

The bill doesn't contain the will of the people. That bill is the will of the congress....who are NOT acting in our best intrest as a nation or representing us accuratly....should we impeach all of them?

“Impeachment is not a tool for resolution of political differences”

Lies about the danger Saddam posed to our country and going to an unjust war as well as outing CIA Agents and using that to attack a person that does not agree with the policy of the President and VP are reasons to Impeach BOTH Bush and Cheney! LET’S START TODAY!

Then we should impeach the entire Congress because they made the case for war as well.  Both of your reasons listed are invalid because they are both are false, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.  Bush/Cheney will not be impeached.

IslandDog

There would not have been an invasion had Bush not overstated the danger from Saddam. Although there was inaccurate intelligence about WMD in Iraq, Bush had accurate Intelligence about the lack of Nuclear weapons in Iraq and Bush had the assessment from the Pentagon in 2002 that said Saddam was not capable of conducting military operations outside Iraq. In fact that report said Saddam was only capable of military operations in the central section of Iraq because of the No Fly Zones. Thus Bush had the information to know that we were NOT in danger from Saddam for the simple reason Saddam did not have the capability to endanger the U.S. Too many in Congress believed what Bush and Cheney said which was a SNOW JOB as to the REAL danger that Saddam, posed to the U.S.! I do not think that Congress will give any future President the type of blank check they gave to Bush in 2002. Many have said if they knew in 2002 what they know today, they would NOT have voted for the resolution. Anyone that today claims what we did by invading Iraq was the correct decision is in total denial.

Cheney was never the focus of the investigation. Get over it. " The Special Prosecutor said in Court that Cheney was involved. The testimony of several witnesses clearly showed Cheney was involved. The memo that Cheney wrote on clearly showed his involvement. You are full of BS!

No, YOU'RE the one full of BS! The prosecutor did say that. BUT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP! The ONLY back up to this is the prosecutor's "feeling".

drmiler

"There was no evidence that would satisfy the many requirements under the law that was intended to protect CIA Agents." There is no question that Cheney, Bush, Armitage and Libby are responsible for providing information about Mrs. Wilson to the Press. That has been established both with documents ( the memo Cheney wrote on) and testimony by multiple people.

drmiler There was no evidence that would satisfy the many requirements under the law that was intended to protect CIA Agents. There is no question that Cheney, Bush, Armitage and Libby are responsible for providing information about Mrs. Wilson to the Press. That has been established both with documents ( the memo Cheney wrote on) and testimony by multiple people

So your very own post proved the point!

It has ALSO been established that Ms. Plame at the time in question WAS NOT A COVERT/UNDERCOVER CIA agent! So there was NO outing of a covert CIA agent.

But several CIA veterans questioned how someone with an embassy background could have successfully passed herself off as a private-sector consultant with no government connections. Genuine NOCs, a CIA veteran said, "never use an official address. If she had [a diplomatic] address, her whole cover's completely phony. I used to run NOCs. I was in an embassy. I'd go out and meet them, clandestine meetings. I'd pay them cash to run assets or take trips. I'd give them a big bundle of cash. But they could never use an embassy address, ever." Another CIA veteran with 20 years of service agreed that "the key is the [embassy] address. That is completely unacceptable for an NOC. She wasn't an NOC, period." After Plame was transferred back to CIA headquarters in the mid-1990s, she continued to pass herself off as a private energy consultant. But the first CIA veteran noted: "You never let a true NOC go into an official facility. You don't drive into headquarters with your car, ever." A senior U.S. intelligence official, who like the others quoted in this article spoke on condition of anonymity, noted that Plame "may not be alone in that category, so I don't want to suggest she was the only one. But it would be a fair assumption that a true-blue NOC is not someone who has a headquarters job at any point or an embassy job at any point."[10]

notice Gene has come back with all the refuted arguments as if no one has ever refuted them before. The sign of a mind not well.

“So your very own post proved the point!”

No that is NOT what I said. There is a BIG difference in being able to meet the technicalities of the very complex law to Protect disclosure of CIA Agents and the established fact that Cheney, Rove, Armitage and Libby provided the fact that Valery Plame was a CIA Agent to the Press. There is simply NO valid reason why those officials should have been talking to the press about our CIA Agents. Their actions put in danger any contacts Mrs. Wilson had when she was in the field as a CIA Agent! For that they should be removed from positions of responsibility in our government even if the technicalities of the law prevent their prosecution!

Gene you are a lying sack of crap!
When I was in the service, doing what I was doing it was illegal to have pictures taken of me to include family pictures. My wife was never allowed to know what I did or where I did it. I have a home in the Philippines that only five years ago was I allowed to travel to see. The law says I was not allowed to go to where I own a home for almost 20 years to protect me and my family. If Mrs. Wilson’s wife was covert she could not have been listed in Who’s who and Mr. Wilson would not have been allowed to list his wife as an agent of the CIA in anything he did. Now the CIA has several cover companies with which it pays its employees, because of her coming out one of those front companies was outed by the NYT. So that company has to shut down and the cost eaten by the government as they create a new company. I work for DHS and the agency that pays me is not DHS. My pay comes out of another agencies budget it is done all the time. All employees that deal with classified data that work for the CIA are paid by front companies or other government agencies. This is done to protect their identities the people are not case officers which Mrs. Wilson was not. She was not in a covert status because Mr. Wilson was allowed to list his wife and her profession in Who’s who for 5 years before she was supposedly “outed” by this administration. The purpose was to make it harder for Soviet spies to locate and try to flip our people that don’t go over seas but have access to classified information. Since there is no Soviet Union the CIA has become lax.

Oh, and more to the point. The CIA does not have agents its covert people are called case officers. Agents are people from other countries that the case officers have turned to work for us. Are you suggesting that Mrs. Wilson works for the enemy, or a foreign nation?

Paladin77

What you talking about has nothing to do with top officials telling the press about our CIA operatives and putting them in danger. Cheney, Libby, Rive should all be removed from the government. Armitage is not currently in the Bush administration.