"Fair and balanced" Fake ONews has on Cavuto a balance of Kristol and Krauthammer, worrying their little heads over the very real likelihood of a Bush impeachment, conviction, and criminal prosecution if the Democrats win Congress in 2006, especially over the false reasons sold to the America to get involved in Iraq. The "Democrats voted for Iraq too" canard is trotted out on cue, as expected.
The only problem is they have the crimes wrong.
It's not the prosecution of the Iraq war that's the issue- although if they were able to show the outing of a CIA agent took place with Bush's connivance that would naturally be fair game.
No, the real issue is the tortue.
As William Pfaff, no Michael Moore, in November's Harper's Magazine points out (no link):
On January 9, 2002, a memorandum co-written by John Yoo of the University of California Law School, who was serving temporarily in the Justice Department, provided arguments to support a claim that with respect to prisoners taken in Afghanistan, the United States was not bound by the Geneva Conventions. The prisoners were to be declared "enemy combatants," not prisoners of war, a legal distinction previously unrecognizedbut considred necessary to prevent American officials from being exposed to the U.S. federal War Crimes Act of 1996, which carries the death penalty
Think about that. A legal fiction is created to justify torture. If torture were found to be condoned and fostered -think Abu Ghraib- violating the Geneva convention- the relevant folks in the Bush regime could be eligible for a federally supplied hypodermic needle and gurney.
Is it any wonder why the right is so supportive of Bush? It's not just hate; it's fear.
But - regardless of the fact that we most assuredly should not stoop to the level of Bush and his regime- it does underscore the gravity of the potential offenses against which Bush and his cronies may be charged.
It ain't hysteria. It's the law.
Not that I realistically think the folks involved will be brought to justice.
But they should be.