That's the beauty of checks-and-balances, with all the inherent accountability necessary for good government. When there's delayed (or non-existent) accountability, the rotten excesses of unfettered power build up and poison government. Lancing the boil lets out that poison, and it AIN'T pretty -- but it's necessary.

...(and shame on anyone who did vote for that resolution, because plenty of voices were out there proclaiming the truth about Iraq), but how does that translate to "no one was mislead"? It's patently obvious that we WERE mislead into a war of choice, one that Bush and friends had planned right from the start of his presidency.

The proof?

Time magazine reported that in March 2002 – a full year before the invasion – Bush outlined his real thinking to three U.S. senators, 'Fuck Saddam,' Bush said. 'We’re taking him out.'"

It's well-accepted that presidents (and by extension, vice presidents) are essentially immune from normal criminal procedures -- that they are only subject to impeachment while in office.

Just because charges aren't brought against a person doesn't mean charges aren't warranted -- it often simply means that a conviction couldn't be achieved, for a variety of reasons (including the one suggested above).

How many truly believe that control freak Cheney was NOT pulling Libby's strings throughout this entire Plame affair? Libby IS the fall guy for all of this, and since he's maintained his story throughout, in the end he's succeeded in protecting his boss.

You can always count on "joe" to write short, pithy and shallow posts that he doesn't even attempt to support with proof.

Re-write history? What a laugh. Saddam had no WMDs, and the inspectors (who confirmed this, and wanted to continue inspections until FORCED out by Dubya's rush to war) said so publicly. Sure, he MAY have had the desire to get WMDs, but I sincerely hope we don't use such flimsy stuff as a reason to go to war again in other countries.

Then just consider the effect of the Iraq diversion on the totally appropriate war in Afghanistan. BOTH wars have gone badly, and might actually be lost. How sad that the justifiable war against the Taliban and al Qaeda could end so badly as a consequence of the president's pre-occupation with Iraq!

What if everything the administration said about Wilson and Plame WERE true? So what?

Does that absolve Libby of the obligation to tell the truth when questioned under oath about the Plame affair?

What am I missing here?

Would it matter only if she'd suffered some kind of long-standing harm? Does it matter that she may snag a book deal, etc. out of this? No, and no.

Besides, "joe", Libby wasn't charged with doing anything illegal against HER. He was prosecuted and convicted for lying when making statements to the FBI and grand jury. Try to stay on topic, OK?

Dubya and his acolytes are truly suffering from a Messianic impulse, as illustrated in this passage from the Bible (Matthew 13:57, King James version):

"But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house."

Just keep the faith, people, it will ALL turn out well. Trust Dubya, just trust him.

Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Nothing more need be added to this lesson we somehow must re-learn every decade or two.

Conventional wisdom (which has yet to be disproved) is that the newly re-elected Gingrich declined to take his House seat and actually resigned from Congress because the GOP lost seats in the 1998 election. The blame was given to Gingrich and his impeachment vendetta against Bill Clinton.

There may have been some ripples due to what was then known or suspected about Gingrich's personal behavior, but his hypocrisy wasn't fully recognized at the time and played little evident role in his resignation.

Bill Kristol is utterly confused about cause-and-effect.

The Plame affair and Libby's role in it didn't CAUSE the "cloud over the White House" -- they're a direct RESULT of the standard m.o. of this administration, best exemplified by that cloud Time magazine placed over Cheney's head on last week's cover.

Pardoning Libby would do nothing to dispel that cloud, but it WOULD "kristolize" everyone's perception that Dubya and his followers have no conscience, few morals, deep hypocrisy and a VERY short memory that can't recall anything the GOP said about, or did to, Bill Clinton.

You can't prove it, of course, but doesn't it look like Rove & Cheney KNOW something about Dubya -- something so deep, dark and dangerous -- that the Current Occupant can't give either man the heave-ho that each deserves?

Sure smells like a classic blackmail situation, doesn't it? Wonder what it might be. Texas National Guard? Drug use? Financial improprieties with Dubya's various businesses? Money from unsavory supporters funneled to him (or his father)?

All the readers of War Room should chime in with their best guess on the reason(s) Dubya can't jettison these creepy characters or their influence from his administration.