These are the critical questions in the Plame case...

[Fiendish Thingy]

Those in the camp of the "unitary executive" would, and will, argue that, by the act of leaking the information, the executive branch simultaneously "declassified" it, thus it wasn't actually a "leak".
The question then arises, and should be asked over and over again by all of us, and hopefully the media, once the above argument is inevitably put forth, by the the Bush administration or its apologist minions:

If it wasn't a leak because it was declassified by the executive branch, then:

1)why would the executive branch decide to "out" and end the career of a covert CIA officer, and effectively end the work of the middle east WMD division up to that time? What possible national security interests could have been served by this declassification?

2)why would this administration lie to the American public, and its own Justice Dept. about this case, if, in fact, there was no "leak"? If this declassification of selective information about Valerie Plame was authorized by the POTUS or VP, why lie about it? What does this White House have to hide?

I know most of us know the answers to these questions,(to cover up the lies that justified the Iraq war, and for revenge) but I think these questions aren't being asked, at least not asked in a way that focuses on the cover up, on what they were trying to hide- this is the frame that could lead to the raising of America's consciousness, and lead to the people demanding impeachment.

Focusing on whether or not Plame was really covert, or what Libby said to whom and when is a distraction; morsel by morsel, Fitz is making public all the evidence needed to impeach Cheney; the evidence to impeach Bush has already been publicly acknowledged by the war criminal himself.

[EVDebs]

1. Arguing to ad absurdum, a 'unitary executive', de facto IS a dictator

begging the question, who is he/she responsible/accountable to ?

"Proof by contradiction..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

THIS is the little something the M$M is determined to keep hidden from the sheeple.

[porphyrian]

2. I'll kick that. - n/t

[Sancho]

3. Go, Fitz, go...

It would really be great to see if Libby or Cheney were on the stand, but I doubt that will ever happen...

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. Ah, the Judge said if Libby doesn't testify, his bad memory defense

is out the window!

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. It would be great, but that's my point- it doesn't matter...

as long as the reasons for the cover up get talked about, it doesn't matter if they take the stand, or even if Libby is convicted, it just matters that the lies, the revenge, and the cover up take center stage.

Thanks for the kicks and the recs!
I think this is my first thread to make the greatest page! (I need 5 votes, right?)

[Senator]

6. More acurately ... "Urinary Executive"

Urinary Executive or Urinary Authoritarian Executive (slang, DCspeak)

n., (en)title -- the "newly-discovered," or "inherent" (i.e., faith-based) Constitutional Authority for an appointed ruler (as opposed to elected leader) to piss down the back of the American People and tell them it's raining.

See also, Trickle-Down Economics

--

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. Good one, Senator, I would add a second definition...

2. "a president who exercises his/her authority by pissing on the Constitution of the United States".

[many a good man]

8. I disagree with your premise

It's my understanding that the "declassification" dealt solely with information in the NIE that bucked up Administration claims regarding WMD. It has nothing to do with outing Plame. It is questionable whether the procedure for declassification was followed correctly, even despite the executive order that granted the VP this power. There were still other requirements that failed to be met.

The only cover for outing Plame is "she wasn't covert" or "it was them not us."

[Fiendish Thingy]

9. not exactly "my" premise, but the "excuse" I expect will be put forth...

if the heat gets turned up- the administration will focus on their claim to the power to declassify merely by revealing the information; in other words, if confronted/cornered, Cheney will claim his power allows him to declassify Valerie Wilson's status merely by speaking her name...I agree with you that this is almost certainly improper procedure, and therefore illegal, but Nixon's last stand was "if the president does it, it's not illegal", and that when the Bushites use it re: the Plame outing, in the process admitting the deeds of the Vice President, we will know the rotten apple is finally ripe for the picking...or would that be impeaching? or am I mixing my fruit metaphors? :)

My premise, or point, was that, we need to ask these critical questions, and pressure the media to ask these critical questions, and not be distracted by legalistic arguments over who could/couldn't declassify and how, but rather the *real* purpose or motivation behind the declassification (and I'm not just talking about political revenge), and the damage done...

or was that the premise you disagreed with? That we shouldn't be asking these particular questions, but focusing instead on some way of getting Cheney charged with a crime?

Hey, whatever gets the bastard impeached before Bush is fine with me; I'm interested in whatever tactic might stir public outrage to a boil, and compel those with jellied spines on Capitol Hill to act...