Reply #66: And they will be impeached for it. I think I understand your frustration.

[pat_k]

. . .but focus on the lower level players is appropriate. They are the strings that unravel. As we focus on the lower level players we are building the larger narrative, which includes the criminal intent of those at the top.

John Yoo is a flunky, but he is the flunky who built the straw house that protects them. Exposing the criminality of John Yoo and his creation is part and parcel of the effort to expose the criminality of the actions at the top. They required his creation to rationalize the crimes they intended to commit. Their rejection of every warning or analysis that labeled the crimes they intended to commit -- and were already committing -- as crimes exposes their criminal intent.

If John Yoo had not come through with the criminally insane fascist fantasy they required, they would have continued to seek someone who would, but it is impossible to know whether they would have successfully found such a person in time. Each additional person they were forced steamroll along the way increased the probability that their schemes would unravel.

As they pursue specific objectives in thier criminal enterprise, the Bush Syndicate are one trick ponies and stonewalling is that trick. All too often they succeed (e.g., Libby's stonewalling to get past the 2004 elections and his continued stonewalling in the hope to get past 2006, or the countless instances of stonewalling to ensure conditions that allowed them to steal the 2004 election), but there are instances in which time has turned against them and thwarted their endeavors.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Haynes, Addington, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Yoo, Walker, et al are terrified that enforcement of the law under genuine Constitutional principle will be restored and will expose their crimes as crimes. They are going to great lengths to protect as much of John Yoo's so-called "theory" as possible. They may have "officially" withdrawn his OFC analysis, but they continue to rely on the fantastical tenets of his so-called "theories" that have been promoted by other means.

They are so protective for a reason. John Yoo and his creation present a point of enormous vulnerability for them. As long as they can maintain the illusion that his "theories" could possibly have a place in the realm of legitimate legal theory, they can point to them as justification.

A visible effort to disbar John Yoo, whether or not that effort is successful, can be an effective focal point around which to rally the troops in an attack on the notion that his so-called theories have any rational basis in the law.

Taking concrete action to make such an effort becoems a reality is a VERY worthwhile endeavor.