Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

Dear Inter-actors:

The following story from Yahoo!News is appropriate to the subject matter of the article. It contains the latest speculations on the CIA leak. According to it, the main characters under probe can be indicted including Vice President Dick Cheney. Whether any of them would be indicted is another matter.


Yahoo! News
Legal Problems Dog Bush`s Inner Circle

By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press WriterSat Oct 22,10:13 AM ET

It`s a nightmare prospect that Republicans have trouble fathoming: legal problems that could drive some of the president`s most powerful aides from office.

A special prosecutor and grand jury are closing in on a deadline to decide whether to lodge criminal complaints against presidential adviser Karl Rove and White House aide I. Lewis ``Scooter`` Libby in the outing of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, the wife of Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson.

If it comes to pass, administration officials and GOP consultants expect President Bush to turn to a few individuals to fill any void in his inner circle.

Among the candidates are go-to Republicans whom Bush trusts, including Ed Gillespie, Ken Mehlman and Karen Hughes; former lawmakers Rob Portman and Vin Weber; and those who could be promoted from within, such as Dan Bartlett, Joshua Bolten and Joe Hagin.

It`s also possible the president could reach out to others in his Cabinet, among them Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez.

Republicans steadfastly cling to the belief that there will be no indictments, the issue will blow over and the speculation will amount to nothing more than idle chatter.

``I don`t think anybody`s leaving,`` said Charles Black, a veteran GOP strategist and close Bush ally.

But one White House official, noting that Bush`s senior staff is tired of the long hours and increasing pressure, has told colleagues it might be best if everyone closest to the president resign and clear the way for new blood and fresh perspectives.

White House chief of staff Andrew Card has been on the job since January 2001, a mark of longevity for Bush compared with Presidents Reagan and Clinton, who each had four chiefs of staff through two terms. Even Bush`s father, George H.W. Bush, had three chiefs of staff in four years as president.

If the unthinkable happens, Republicans know where Bush will look.

Rove has been labeled ``Bush`s brain`` by administration foes and the ``architect`` of Bush`s rise to power by the president`s backers. He is considered a White House adviser without peer. Conservative activist Grover Norquist finds it hard to imagine one person handling Rove`s job.

``Karl is sufficiently sui generis (unique), it would take two or three different people to replace him,`` Norquist said.

Among the possible replacements are Gillespie, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee; current RNC chief Mehlman, or Hughes, a former White House political adviser to Bush now working in the State Department.

Hughes, whose title is Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, is trying to reverse anti-American sentiment around the world.

Black said he would be surprised if Hughes left that post because Bush ``believes he`s put Karen in the most important job in the government.`` Rather, the president would likely promote from within, and White House counselor Bartlett could get the call.

Kevin Spillane, a Republican consultant in California, said Gillespie and Hughes would be the most obvious candidates.

``Hughes is unique in selling policy and has the president`s trust,`` Spillane said. ``Gillespie can juggle policy and media.``

Although Rove is considered indispensable to Bush, the political landscape has changed with no presidential election for Bush on the horizon. Mehlman can handle the politics of the 2006 midterm elections and beyond, Norquist said.

As for Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney`s chief of staff and his assistant on national security affairs, his departure would leave Cheney with the option of bringing in a trusted adviser. That could be former aide Mary Matalin or a specialist in national security, such as Eric Edelman, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey.

Edelman was national security assistant to Cheney from February 2001 to June 2003.

Republicans close to senior administration officials say it is unlikely Card would leave, especially if the White House is in a lurch with a Rove indictment. But if Card does exit, Bush could tap Gillespie; turn to Portman, the former Ohio congressman now serving as U.S. trade representative; choose one of his Cabinet secretaries or promote Card`s deputy, Joe Hagin, or Bolten, the White House budget chief.

And what if the unthinkable happens and Cheney is indicted?

Cheney has said he is not interested in pursuing the Republican nomination for president in 2008. So Bush`s choice to replace his running mate would tip the president`s hand on his preference for 2008. Florida governor and first brother, Jeb Bush?

Mohammad Gill

#11 Mirmir

``Watergate Convictions: •one vice-presidential resignation ``

Minor correction:

Vice President Spiro Agnew`s resignation was not related to Watergate. He had taken some bribes while he was governor of Maryland and his indictment came while he was vice-president. Nixon took that as an opportunity to let him go so that he can appoint Ford as his vice-president. His logic was that people will not dare to impeach and remove him because of very low expectations from Ford.

The country survived. It only proves that if the institutions are strong and people are evolved, presidents can come and go and republics survive.

Re: # 14
Pardesi...
You are absolutely correct in this. Thanks for the correction.
mirmir

Mr. behram:

You`re right. The impeachment was in progress and was predominantly against Nixon. Seeing the trend, he resigned. The day of the impeachment, I was in the U.S. on vacation and was flying out the same day.

Mohammad Gill

I just wanted to record my disgust on this board; otherwise, reading anything about these arrogant fukks and war criminals makes my skin crawl. ughhh.

The problem that ails the US admin is rooted in the Iraq war. Was the decision to go to war right or wrong? The entire USA is talking about it now. The homes, offices, and bars are abuzz with competing arguments and people are coming to a conclusion that somehow mistakes were made and maybe the bush admin is incapable of correcting those mistakes. The outing of Valerie Plame was part of the effort to cover up the administration’s embarrassment over the WMD nonsense.

I am one of those who supported the war. Not because I believed in the WMD hoax or the democracy BS. Anyone who has learned a little about realpolitik from the pros knows how to pull the wool over eyes. The Bush admin did the same thing but never had the guts to plant some WMD to justify its apparent reason for war. Now they are taking a beating about the WMD hoax.

There were two very important reasons for the US to go this war. First, it was clear that the Sanctions that destabilized and weakened Iraq, were collapsing and it appeared that they will not remain tenable for a long time.

But the second and the most important reason, the US admin never came out and made it in public, was the most compelling one for people who knew the stakes in Iraq. The problem was that this reason alone would not have met public approval that the urgency of the US action required.

A little background first.
Iraq and Saddam after the 1991 war were slowly crumbling. The sanctions were making it difficult for the Saddam regime to keep a firm control over the government in Iraq and it was quite clear to the US admin in 1998 that some way had to be found to stabilize Iraq. But the problem was Saddam Hussein and there was no way that the US public would have accepted stabilizing of the Saddam government even in 1998.

While all this was still at the diplomatic level, the bin Laden group had some great successes in the ME. That created another set of problems for the US and Europeans. A terrorist group in isolation can be dealt with but if that group happens to have protection from some state, dealing with it becomes extremely difficult. It was feared that since Saddam is weakening with every passing day and it was constantly in conflict with Saudi Arabia, he would end up making a deal with Anti Saudi terrorist led by Bin Laden to regain lost prestige and political stability. Once the terrorist had a state for support around Levant, both Saudi and Israeli would be under immediate threat.

European also agreed with the US but they decided to stabilize the Saddam regime by pressing to remove sanctions. Europeans did not believe that a regime change in Iraq was possible from the outside. Bill Clinton did make a decision to formulate some effort to change the Saddam regime.

While the European wanted to remove sanctions to stabilize Iraq, the US wanted him out first, install a new regime, and then provide support for stability. Clinton got caught up in the stained dress and in Bosnia and the sanctions in Iraq continued to erode the Iraq government stability.

The Bush admin knew that the stained dress had disabled the Clinton admin and it was unable to do anything about Terrorism and Iraq. It became Bush’s task number one to find a way to get to Iraq as soon as possible.

911 provided that opportunity.

Now it was just a matter of selling the war against Iraq to the US public. That is where the US admin bungled. Instead of trying to invent the reason for the war, they should have made a better attempt in linking Iraq with the terrorism. I can understand the admin’s dilemma. This linkage was impossible in the absence of any hard links between Iraq and Bin Laden, there was no way the US public would have bought a war based on some postulations how real they may be for the US admin. Though, this theme was softly peddled to the US Public.

On top of all that the admin miscalculated in Iraq. The first and the biggest mistake was dismantling of the Iraqi army. The jobless army men provided the first wave of anti-US resistance and now it has been picked by several groups. The Bush admin is having difficulty in providing justification to its continued stay in Iraq.

The Dems in the CIA and in the bureaucracy want a revenge for the destruction and impeachment of Clinton Admin by the Republicans.
Irony: the war in Iraq has also destabilized the Bush Admin.
The charade continues and will most like bring down some members of the admin.


mirmir, Feroz
Sovereign Immunity does not apply. The POTUS cannot be indicted, but the VP can be.

Re: # 9
HP

``The first and the biggest mistake was dismantling of the Iraqi army. The jobless army men provided the first wave of anti-US resistance and now it has been picked by several groups. ``


I really wonder how great of a job the originally iraqi army would have done. it was still Bathists/sunni dominated. what their attitude towards shiahs and kurds would been.

mistrust and sabotage would still be a part of daily operations.

Re: # 9 HP {``...The problem that ails the US admin is rooted in the Iraq war. ... somehow mistakes were made... bush admin is incapable of correcting... I am one of those who supported the war. ...``}

A friend of mine sums it up best. He begins with mocking the monkey trial that started in Iraq last week.

What gives this court the authority to try me, asks Saddam Hussain? Good question, my friend comments. The answer is plain: only the force of U.S. arms...that is to say, only the brute power of an invading army. ``I am the only lawful president of Iraq,`` he quotes Saddam, ``not a puppet put in by the Americans.`` Again, Saddam has a point. He stole the job all by himself. Not as the puppet of some foreign invader. ``How dare you pass judgment on me,`` he further quotes the former Iraqi dictator.

It is merely the latest in a long chain of blunders, my wise friend adds.

We are witnessing something remarkable in modern world history. A Great Power is rolling over. There is hardly an error chronicled in any history of imperial wars, he claims, that American forces have not committed in Iraq.

One of the pleasures of being the world’s super-power, I agree with my historian friend, is that you get to cut off the heads of your enemies, and you never have to say you’re sorry. Helagu Khan was a master at it. He took Baghdad the proper way. Nobody asked him any questions afterwards. Caesar, Ghenghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Stalin...all conquerors made a point of punishing those who stood against them. But the trial of Saddam Hussain is a first. It is the first time the former ruler of a conquered nation has gone on television...so that he may rally his people against the invader!

U.S. soldiers might have done better to treat him as Genghis Khan treated one of his enemies: pouring molten silver in his ear. Then at least he would not be on television pointing out the obvious to his compatriots; he is only on trial because the country was over-run by foreign troops.

Once again, according to my learned friend, history’s most incompetent empire is a victim of its own humbug.

It may be true that many Iraqis welcomed the fall of Saddam Hussain because he ruined their lives. He started two disastrous wars, against Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. Hundreds of thousand of Iraqis were killed and wounded. The country’s oil wealth was spent on weapons. In the 1990s, U.N. sanctions impoverished the country. Iraqis should have been living like the Saudis but instead, they had the standard of living of Sudan. As U.S. tanks rolled in Baghdad, they hoped their lives would now get better. Instead they got even worse. Imagine that… , the Anglo-Saxon imperial overlords have miraculously accomplished what seemed impossible when the war began; they have made Saddam’s rule seem to many Iraqis like the “good old days.”

The billions supposedly spent by the U.S. - much of it Iraqi oil money - produced few benefits. The country became a feeding trough for politically well-connected U.S. companies and individuals. ...Even the corruption desensitised Iraqis were shocked to find that almost the entire $1.3 billion procurement budget of the defense ministry had disappeared...Much of the Iraqi government exists only on paper. It is more of a racket than an administration. Its officials turn up only on payday. Elaborate bureaucratic procedures exist simply so that a bribe has to be paid to avoid them.

My wise friend goes on to assert that the U.S. actions in Iraq are not an “error” from a historical perspective. They are a necessity. Every great empire must extinguish itself somehow. Otherwise, we would still be ruled by Assyrians or Romans or Mongols. What Anglo-American forces are doing is merely a form of “suicidal statecraft,” as Zbigniew Brzezinski has suggested; that’s it, it is a way of cutting their own heads off.

Somehow, I agree with my wise friend. We are witness to a remarkable turning point in modern history. The chickens are coming home. America was waiting for the cows to come home. They didn`t, instead the chickens did.

...SR

ferozk:

If the legal principle of sovereign immunity as you`ve defined exists for protecting a government and its officials against misconduct and legal excesses, what was the purpose of starting this probe? I doubt if the U.S. government and its officials are beyond the reach of law otherwise how they can be held accountable.

I am not expert in legal matters but the sovereign immuinity principle as you`ve described doesn`t seem to make sense.

A president can pardon any official who might be indicted; that is the power that he has. But such an action, if taken by President Bush, will further erode the credibility of his administration. But such thoughts are still premature. The Special Prosecutor might not indict anyone.

President Ford had pardoned President Nixon after he was impeached in the Watergate cover up and resigned.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 8

The purpose of any government probe is never to punish any wrong doing, but to create the impression of a government`s resolve to be seen as upholding the law. The basic function of an investigating commission or an inquiry is to share credit equally by absolving everyone involved of any blame. The purpose of a government`s criminal investigation is never to punish the guilty, but to defend the principle of justice itself. In principle, the guilty should be punished, but in reality, the guilty are a part of the administration/government and to punish erring officals, in the actuality of the act, would be implying that governmental actions themselves are open to question. The purpose of an investigation is to deflect outside criticism and questions, by conducting the investigation ``in house`` so that its conclusions and findings can be contolled and tailored to the government`s own interest in escaping accountibility. Even before an investigation gets underway, its conclusions are already decided and the whole process is to convince the people that a given government/administration is responsive to their criticism and in principle, but though not in reality, holds itself accountible for its actions.

In principle, no US offical is above the law, but in reality US officals are answerable to their individual superiors and are supposed to implement the institutional policies of their respective departments. Therefore, if they make a mistake or break a law, there is a high probability that they will be dealt by, and with, the administrative laws, which govern each department and will not be judged in a open public court. The decision of the inter-departmental administrative courts is alway to make sure that the case is dismissed from the public knowledge and the public`s and the press` intrusions into the matter are ended through the mechanism of a probe, which in the principle is supposed to uphold accountibility to the people, but in reality is supposed to prevent accountibility to the people, by keeping them out of the process. Hence, though in theory, the US officals are not above the law and in principle, such might be the case; in reality, they have an offical immunity, which prevents them from being held accountable under the law.

The functions of the government are not supposed to make sense to the average person. The laws of the government, are not supposed to make sense, because if they made sense, the people would realize just how much the government lies to them. The function of the government, in principle is to serve the people, but in reality it is to complicate the goverance to such an extent that the people leave its implementation to the officals and do not judge the officals` expertise to govern them, because the complicated nature of government makes its functionings unfathomable to average citizen.

A president can pardon anyone in United States, but what is important in the United States` political architecture is not the personality of the president, but the institution of the presidency. It is the creditibility of the institution, which has to be protected and not of the president, which is the cause of concern in any investigating probe in the United States. A president, and in this case, President Bush, will never in principle undertake such an action for personal reasons and he will invoke such a right to prevent the presidency from being tarnished. He will undertake such an action to protect the powers of the presidency from being made accountable to the other two branches of the government; legislative or the judicary.

The president of the United States is also the head of the government and the bureaucracy of the United States, though in principle answers to the Congress, in reality works under the direction of the president of the United States. It is the job of the Congress, under the US constitution to make the law, and it is the job of the bureaucracy to implement such laws after the White House and the president approve of it. Being under the authority of the president, the American bureaucracy in principle is supposed to a apolitical, but given the political nature of the White House and the presidency itself and the fact that the president appoints his political suppoters or politically like minded people to head the various departments in the United States, the bureaucracy in the United States follows the political aims of the party, which occupies the White House and this makes the United States bureaucracy highly political in its outwards orientations towards policy objectives as defined by a political White House and a political president.

Another factor in this is the permanence of the bureaucracy itself vis-a-vis the political leadership in the White House. The politics of the White House and the presidency is such, that it will be in a constant mode of change, with administrations coming and going periodically. On the other hand, the bureaucrats, who serve the White House will stay and not change with new administrations and since their primary job is to implement the directives of their political masters, they will only do so if they are not made accountible for their actions. If the bureaucrats are made accountable and punished, then the whole system breaks down, because than the political policies of the presidency will never be carried out by bureaucrats, who will worried about their own security from prosecution.

Thus, in order to make the political directives of the White House and its political appointees are carried out, the bureaucracy has to be made immune from the consequences of such policies and has to be protected from prosecution in case the policies malfunction. A policy malfunction is does not mean that the policy does not work; it only means that the public has an awareness of such a policy in being existence, which makes the execution of such said policy problematic. Therefore, in order to avoid public oversight of such a policy, the governments create investigating commissions, whose sole purpose is prevent the truth from coming out, but it is never, under any consideration, to punish those officals, who might have broken the law.

Besides, even if a law was fractured, it can always be attributed to the ``Rhodesian solution`` and the crisis averted. :)

Ciao

Re: # 8

Dear Mohammad Gill Sahib,

If my memory serves me, I believe President Nixon was not impeached by Congress in the watergate cover. He resigned under the threat of impeachment and was subsequently pardoned by President Ford.

Respectfully submitted,

BBA

re: Mohammad Gill

There is a legal principle called ``sovereign immunity``, which will prevent Vice-President Chenny and anyone associated, with the Bush administration from being prosecuted.

The idea is a simple one and it was designed to protect the government and its officals from prosecution. The idea was to create an immunity, which would allow the government officals to conduct the affairs of the state, as they thought best, without the fear of legal accountibility.

In other words, Chenny et al have to agree to be charged, with a crime before they can be charged with a crime and tried under the due process of the law. The legalism of sovereign immunity says that the state must allow itself to charged, with a crime and since the state - Bush adminisration, will never agree to this proposition, no charges can be brought against any offical of the White House in pursuance of their offical duties.

Chenny et al, will never be implicated or tired in a court of law let alone being punished for an illegal act.

The most probable course seems to be that Bush will pardon Chenny`s conduct and once that happens, there will be no grounds to charge him, with any misdemeanor.

Ciao

Re: # 5, # 8 and # 9

One great concept that the Founders of the U.S. wanted to make perfectly clear: No citizen is above the law, not even the president himself who remains accountable for (among other things) acts that might constitute a violation of Federal criminal law. The very limited and specific immunity that he enjoys is immunity for prosecution for acts committed in his official capacity. I can`t believe that any court would consider a criminal act by the president to be ``in his official capacity.`` The ``Sovereign Immunity`` principle deals with SUITS brought against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not suits or charges against individual officials of the government.

Watergate Convictions:

•one presidential resignation
•one vice-presidential resignation
•40 government officials indicted or jailed
•H.R. Haldeman & John Erlichman (White House staff) resigned 30April1973, subsequently jailed
•John Dean (White House legal counsel) sacked 30April1973, subsequently jailed
•John Mitchell, Attorney-General and Chairman of the Committee to Re-elect the President(CREEP) jailed
•Howard Hunt and G.Gordon Liddy (ex-White House staff), planned the Watergate break-in, both jailed
•Charles Colson, special counsel to the President jailed
•James McCord (Security Director of CREEP) jailed

Precedent for Immunizing Official, Presidential Acts -- BUT NO OTHERS.
The actual text of the Constitution does not grant immunity to a president, but the Supreme Court has declared that a president is absolutely immune from DAMAGES LIABILITY for his OFFICIAL, presidential acts. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). There is, however, no precedent for granting immunity to a president for alleged acts that
(1) cannot be official, presidential acts because they were committed before....election to the presidency,
(2) would not be official, presidential acts even if committed as alleged....after inauguration,
(3) would constitute an abuse of official power by a sitting president, and
(4) may constitute a violation of Federal criminal law.

mirmir

Re: # 5
There is a brief but succinct explanation of ``Sovereign Immunity`` at this site: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm.
As I understand it, the principle applies to the government, not to individuals (no matter how powerful they might be). Check with an attorney to be sure. mirmir

Re: # 5
I believe that a review of the Watergate saga wouldn`t support this contention. Didn`t we see several Nixon aides (government officials) who were involved in this scandal jailed? Even Bush and Cheney aren`t exempt from charge and prosecution for crimes committed in office, but it would be done by Congress, not by the courts.
mirmir

{``...This whole issue emerged from the administration’s efforts to build a strong case for war against Iraq. The fundamental reason for invading Iraq was the allegation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (wmds), which Iraq denied all along. The United Nations weapon inspectors had failed to uncover any such weapons in Iraq in spite of their concerted and patient efforts. The White House did not buy the UN’s search results and defended its stance by assertions, which subsequently were proved wrong. ...}

George W. Bush saw an increase in his poll ratings coming. People love a “war” president, at least until they’ve lived through a real war. He relished the opportunity to put on a flight suit and land on a real U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, ostensibly to rally the troops, but more importantly to rally the gullible American public.

Like almost all great public spectacles, the war against Iraq was commenced on a fraud, played out as a farce, and now threatens to end in abject tragedy. Just as it should.

...SR