Taking heads wonder, "Why'd Libby tell such obvious lies?" The answer is simple.

[pat_k]

Libby was just following their standard game plan:

Stonewall. And stonewall some more.

Blatant perjury? Absurd lies guaranteed to be exposed? So What? A pardon awaits any co-conspirator exposed.

Indictments on the horizon? Hand Fitzgerald a new rat hole. Keep jerking him around until they've stolen Election 2004 and secured their hold on the massive power of the American presidency.

The song remains the same. Obstruct for as long as possible by any means necessary, future fallout be damned.

Poppy abused power to escape the nastiness of trials by "pre-pardoning" Iran-Contra conspirators. The "decider" apparently figured the cost of a Libby "pre-pardon" wasn't worth it, or he would have done the same.

Just as Lawrence Walsh's painstaking efforts came to naught, so too will Patrick Fitzgerald's.

Fitzgerald could have refused to go down those rat holes. He could have said "enough is enough" and pushed forward. If he had, he may have avoided Walsh's fate. Tragically for the nation, he didn't.

Only Congress can stop the inevitable pardons by impeaching Bush and Cheney. Only Congress can rescue the Constitution from the clutches of these lawless men.

From Lost History: Dole Nearly Cited in Iran-Contra Report

After Bush left office, the ex-president soon reneged on an understanding that he would submit to a full-scale interview with Walsh about Bush's real involvement in the scandal. Walsh had postponed the questioning until after the presidential election to spare Bush from the distraction. . .

In ducking the interview, Bush was aided again by Democratic timidity and an apathetic Washington press corps. Bush's avoidance of the testimony was barely mentioned deep inside the major national newspapers in early 1993. Yet outside the media's gaze, there was a big story missed. Privately, Walsh was considering possible indictment of the ex-president, especially given Bush's failure to produce his notes from 1986-87 until Dec. 11, 1992.

Will the magnitude of the offenses wake up the Congressional leadership? Will enough of us get in their faces to break through their bizarro world rationalizations for cowardly dereliction?

Or will the dark pages of our history repeated? Will they slavishly repeat the past? Will it be "deja vu all over again"?

Time will tell.

[redqueen]

1. The answer? Because you let them!

Stupid media whores... do they really think we don't hold them accountable?

[ThoughtCriminal]

2. The problem with Pre-Pardons

Is that they can still be called to testify by Congress. They cannot claim 5th Amendment if they cannot be prosecuted and cannot lie without risking new perjury charges.

[pat_k]

3. Of course, that would require Congress to follow through. . .

. . .instead of washing their hands that which they find distasteful as they "look forward, not back."

Tragically, Democrats are irrationally squeamish when it comes to accusation and punishment. They settle for toothless investigation and efforts to "make sure it doesn't happen again." They don't go after wrong-doers with everything they've got.

"Fixing the system" so it "doesn't happen again" is not enough. When wrong-doers betray the public trust we must be willing to go after them personally. Government is a system, but it is a system driven by people. We will never "fix" the system if we don't back up words with proof that "this behavior will not be tolerated."

[cascadiance]

4. At some point, perhaps a constitutional ammendment is necessary...

that limits the ability of a president to pardon those folks in such high positions. I don't have an answer yet on the details on how one could limit this and still preserve the pardoning power for truly needed situations, but it's been abused so much over the years that we keep recycling the criminals in and out of office and more and more criminals are emboldened to take part in and screw up our government because they know they have so much to gain with so little liklihood of getting punished! We need to up the ante on the latter!

If it becomes so obvious that both Bush and Cheney should be impeached and thrown out of office, I'd almost be willing to cut a deal with the Republicans that would keep Pelosi from taking over (appointing an interim president that both sides of congress could agree on) if we could get enough Republicans to support such an ammendment in exchange for keeping that sort of transfer of power to happen so that we can put in barriers against either party from having such chances at abusing the system again, and then REALLY go after all of these bums when their time is up in 2008 (or earlier if they leave office) in courts and in prisons, and perhaps even in the Hague for some of them!

[Demeter]

5. Simple! No President Can Pardon Anyone In His Employ

at any time during his term of office. Then you just have the Gerald Ford issue, which I don't think anyone will ever do again.