ABC/WP poll 69% think 'special council' is justified

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data100103.html
 
6. Do you think this investigation should be handled by (the U.S. Justice Department, which is part of the Bush administration), or should it be handled by (an outside investigator known as a special counsel, that is not part of the Bush administration)?

Justice
Department 29

special council 69

no opinion 3

and we want the shrub put under oath. pleeeeaseeee.....

Hmmmmm... Shrub has been way to calm through all this (even taking into account the flask of booze in his boots); if you watch, he's been smirking.

I have a bad feeling about all this; it feels like a set-up. Schumer is going to get us into trouble; that's why Hil isn't touching this one and is letting Schumer handle this.

Think about it.

into something positive for the WH. I wouldn't pay any attention to Bush's demeanor. He's out of it most of the time, anyway.

Novak is playing coy. What happens if the "leaker" turns out to have been appointed by Clinton (and held-over)? That would be very bad news. Why do you think the REPtiles are keeping their mouths shut? I mean, really -- who do you think Novak talks to? Schumer? I don't think so.

I don't want to have to say, "told ya so", but...

in the WH? I didn't think there were any. If there are, I think the chances of the leak coming from there are slim to zero.

That's the catch -- the buzzword is "administration", not "White House". That's the real trick here (I'm pretty sure).

Nobody ever said "White House"

That's what is suspicious.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but... I think this could end up being a landmine. Watch Hil; if she takes the lead, then okay. If not, then we should really be on alert.

Remember... Rove is more than capable of pulling off something like this.

the leak was said to have come from the "White House". I'll have to check..

Do that, but go to the original source -- Novak. Look at what he said in his article today and his original article. He says "administration".

I knew that this was too good to be true; it's going to bite us in the ass. Just watch.

... I think * may be so calm because he does, in fact, KNOW he doesn't know what happened. Scott McClellan did say that yesterday, if you remember.

that he thinks he's sanctioned by God.

my off the cuff guess is that Cheney may be behind the leak.

Use common sense -- Cheney is the brains behind the operation. There is no way he would jeopardize himself like that.

Hey, I like your icon.

Anyway, I think we are treading in dangerous territory here. If there was anything worth going after, Hillary would be on this.

I think this is a mistake for two reasons:

1) If it comes to nothing, then the voters will forget about it in a year and a month anyway (and it lowers our credibility when we try to, later, go after a more substantial story);

2) If it is a trap, we will get screwed big time.

is the final word on these things. Seems to me she sort of missed the boat on the WMD spin.

that way? And welcome to DU

walk into a trap? I don't think so.

Thanks, dude.

As a lawyer, I can tell you that this will go nowhere (besides the fact that tons of these exact investigations go on each year, and leak sources are never uncovered). The element of "intent" or "knowledge" is integral to an indictment here; even an independent investigator would not be able to get enough admissible evidence to warrant an indictment here.

I just see a lot of good folks getting excited here, and I don't want you to get your hopes up too high only to realize a big let-down.

Prediction:

1) This goes nowhere, disappears, and is forgotten by election '04

2) Someone comes forward, takes the heat, gets fired publically by shrub, and he comes out looking like a hero

3) Of course, as part of #2, if the person who is identified is a Clinton holdover, then we become a permenant minority in '04.

So, net net, is it worth the risks? Probably not.

request an investigation, if it was going to go nowhere?

because this is *routine*. Haven't you been following the news? There have been at least 50 of these investigations per year, every year, for years. That's why.

the CIA has requested investigations into the Bush (or Clinton for that matter) administrations outing their agents in the past?

Yup. It is not often reported. Remeber... you have a butt-load of reporters getting a butt-load of "leaks" every hour of every day of every year. Some are, naturally, investigated.

Think about how many stories you see with information from "an unnamed source in the CIA". Those get investigated. It is not an uncommon thing. That's why I see a lot of people here getting disappointed very shortly.

been paying attention then, because I don't remember CIA folks on TV breathing fire and spitting nails over their agents being exposed until that last few days.

Who are you talking about? Who from the CIA has been on TV?

I follow fact, not rumor. I don't like being let down when I don't have to be. I don't like to lose. Therefore, I withold judgment until all the facts are out there.

They are not. What I see so far is not "blowing my skirt up".

Another rain cloud. :shrug:

...said they didn't think Bush* had anything to do with it.

we will all be disappointed. At most, some low level staffer gets the boot. At worst, it gets pinned on a Clinton appointee.

If we can't get at Bush, Cheney Dick, or Rove -- which we can't here because Wilson has backtracked on that one -- we should move on. All we can do is shoot ourself in the foot.