Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

The Wategate investigation concerned efforts of a "dirty tricks" squad from a Presidential campaign to sabotage their opposition, and thereby guarantee Nixon's re-election. Precisely because of the Watergate, Americans are now jaded by such matters, and additionally got tired of the accusations of a stolen election in 2000. The Fitzgerald investigation simply does not command the nation's attention as did the Watergate investigation. People called for Nixon's impeachment after the Saturday Night Massacre--there isn't such a level of indignation operating with regard to the Plame/Wilson bruhaha. I do believe it is responsible for the slide in the Shrub's approval rating, but i don't think this rises to the level of the Watergate affair.

kinda the same thing here though, innit?

Plame/Wilson has to do with the Shrub's bogus jsutification for the invasion of Iraq.

Fitzgerald's investigation may be taking long, because it may involve Bush and the possible prosecution of the high level admin folks. We can all dream, can't we?

and the dirty tricks used to cover it up.

i keep getting the feeling that there is a loose thread that, if fitzgerald gives it just a little pull, is gonna unravel the whole disgusting mess.

i'd not dispute the points that either C.I. or DTOM are making . . . i just don't think the country cares about this the way they cared about Watergate. C.I. has a good point, if i take his meaning correctly--equating Fitzgerald to Watergate is dreaming.

Unfortunately, setanta, I think your right, more shame on us.

The country doesn't even have the facts in this case. If indictments are handed down of conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act, it will be a bombshell.

I disagree . . . i still believe that most people simply don't care . . . i wish it were different, but i don't believe it is different, and wishing and believing must always be separate . . .

".... . i still believe that most people simply don't care..."

There's another aspect to this that may play into the psyche of those who voted for Bush. They wouldn't want to admit their mistake....

Whether Bush lied or not to get us into war in Iraq that have already taken over 1,800 American lives and cost over 200 billions dollars, will be very difficult to accept responsibility.

Quite so, C.E. I think to leave it at "Americans just don't care" is shortsighted to the point of dullardry. I think more things are allowed to go on out of fear and ignorance than just out of ignorance alone, and you touched on that. I think if things like the Downing Street Memo weren't being treated like journalistic arsenic by our cowardly press, some eyes and mouths might begin to open, and we'd see just how much Americans "care" about that pustule called an administration in Washington.

Well then, let's start with the simpler things to do. If people are still unwilling to say that Bush lied, then what is the next best thing?


We already know that the intelligence was wrong about so many things.

How do you put it into words that the admin knew what they were doing? How do you get that out there so that it hits peoples' heads with a sledgehammer?

Edited because i don't intend to sink to the childish level of other members here.

Huh?

You're fine, Dear, carry on . . . and i know you will . . .

That most Americans don't care about politics is brought strikingly home at each national election, when less than half of the electorate, and therefore considerably less than half of the population, go to the polls. C.I.'s point about voter embarrassment has some merit, but i don't think all that much, because many of the objections to the war and the putative evidence were raised before the invasion, and before the last election. A good deal of the support for the Shrub simply will not listen to criticism of their iconic leader. Given that, and the number of people whose apathy is evident in low voter turn-out, i reaffirm my conviction that most Americans simply do not care about this issue. For the snide among us, if that makes me a dullard, i'm prepared to live with that. Perhaps in the future this may rise to the level of concern that made the Saturday Night Massacre so important--for the present, i see no good reason to believe that the two circumstances are comparable.

I agree with Chrissee. The issues of the Plame/Wilson affair have not been brought down crystal clear to an American electorate who has limited time to follow these things.

Watergate was about a burglary. People understand burglaries. That is when someone sneaks into someplace they have no right to be in order to take something they have no right to have. The idea of government involvement in that seemed shocking.

With Plame, however, the issues are less clear cut, or at least require more time to get a handle on than many busy people are willing to give at this point. She's covert but she works in an office, it's only a violation of the law if the leaker knows it's classified but not if it comes from other sources, what does this Email say, who said what during which phone call, and so on. It gets confusing. The less-than-clear issues involved enable talk radio and various blogs to spin the issue as much as possible, so that adds to the picture.

But people do understand jail time. And Rove and Libby have become far more well-known now than they once were. If and when charges are made against these well-known government officials, then the issues will become far easier to grasp for the average voter who has limited time to devote to current affairs.

I know but I will be willing to be that there won't be an outcry for impeachment even if Rove or Libby or both or others in the administration were actually found guilty and charged.

I think maybe the public (me anyway) feels that all the emotion is a waste because no one is trustworthy anymore. It's almost as though we have just accepted that this is just the way it is here now.

As for the ever dwindling faithful few who see the bush as doing no wrong, Bush could be caught on tape beating a staff member with a bible and excuses would be made for Bush. Before long the staff member would be trashed and a public debate would commence on the staff member rather than the fact that bush beat up someone. Most people would see through it but it would have the effect of taking any momentum out of putting the pressure on doing something about the out of control president.

(In a hypothetical situation of course)

I would not be surprised if by chance Fitzarald (?spell) gets closer to getting a case together against someone in the WH, Fitzarld himself comes under some kind of smear campaign as others here have suggested.

These people seem to have the hides of wet fish, everything just slides right off of them no matter how obviously guilty the majority of the public believes them to be. (don't know if hides would be the correct word in connection with fish…) One reason might be that unlike the Nixon era, the faithful followers of Bush refuse to beleive anything negative about Bush or any his (WH) decisions or policies. They cling to him in the face of all logic and defense. If they ever turned on Bush, then maybe something at last would be done.

You can thank Bubba for that.

Set


Set, thank you, thank you, for reminding everyone of what, to me, is the obvious issue. It's only a side issue that a CIA agent was outed. Bush et al lied to the American people and to the world to get us into a war with Iraq that they wanted before Bush was first selected to the presidency.

Bush lied --- Bush lied --- Bush lied. We got into war with Iraq and thousands of people have died.

And to Tico, you show your pitiful true stripes when you try to equate Clinton's lies about getting a blow job with lies to start a deadly war, one that can't be justified. Shame on you!

BBB