This is definitely big, big stuff. But I'm wary of it. Atrios broke the news under the headline "IMPEACH" -- but do we really want two administrations with impeachment proceedings in a row? What kind of precedent will that set?

The problem is that if these allegations are true, they certainly seem like the kind of thing impeachment was designed for. Seizing power that the constitution specifically forbids your office? Moreover, doing so toward the end of prosecuting a war that, it's become clear to nearly everyone, was unwarranted? What are we supposed to do? It's dangerous to throw around rash political ideas like this -- I wouldn't want go around saying Bush stole from war orphans, for instance. Except the $700 million came from Afghan reconstruction efforts. So: HE STOLE FROM WAR ORPHANS. Jesus!

On the other hand, November is not that far away. If the Dems were smart they would make a huge fuss about this stuff and set up a high-profile commission to loudly investigate the allegations, with a deadline set for well after November. And the first time a reporter utters the words "impeachable offense" to John Kerry, he'd say something like "impeachment is the most serious measure it is possible to take against a sitting president; we absolutely cannot afford to risk using it for frivolous political purposes. I think these allegations are potentially very, very serious, and must be investigated. But I refuse to use the impeachment process as a political football." Y'know... just to say "they're being jerks now; they were being jerks then, too. We're not going to sink to their level."

And if he really, REALLY wants to rub it in -- and assuming Kerry wins -- issue Bush a pardon as soon as he gets into office, prior to the commission releasing their findings.

1. Wrong
2. Wrong
3. Wrong

1. Powell's answer on Hannity's radio show just states that he had seen the invasion plan prior to Bandar, not that he was told the plan would be implemented before Bandar was. I have no doubt Cheney qualified the presentation to Bandar so that he could back out of an invasion should the unforeseen occur. However, if you're inviting an ally into the White House to look at an invasion plan (marked NOFORN, incidentally), I'd say the implication is pretty strong that the intention is to go ahead with it. Bandar wasn't being consulted, he was being warned. We don't go around showing contingency plans to ambassadors just because they make nice conversation pieces. The point remains: Bandar knew to a small margin of doubt that we'd be going to war before Powell did. In any case, this mostly just makes them look bad -- it's not illegal by any means. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that Powell is alienated from the rest of the administration and that the US government is in bed with the Saudis (and was long before GW got into office).

2. Semantic dodging. There may have been no quid-pro-quo, so it's not a "deal". The Larry King transcript makes it clear the Saudis intended to manipulate oil prices to keep Bush in office. Just because OPEC is fundamentally crooked doesn't mean we should write off how much it stinks to have a foreign cartel manipulating our democracy.

3. This is going to take a lot more hashing out to see exactly how the Pentagon was empowered to spend its money. The fact that they waited to spend the bulk of the sum until the resolution authorizing the President to pursue war was passed implies that the folks doing the spending were at least aware that their actions may not have been appropriate. This will boil down to legalistic parsing, I'm sure. Regardless, spending money toward the end of invading a foreign country without congress knowing about it is still wrong.

also, if there were no oil deal, why can't scott mclellan just say so! i mean, is prince bandar actually now a white house spokesman?:

QUESTION: We’re missing the allegation here, which is that Prince Bandar and the Saudis have made a commitment to lower oil prices to help the President politically. Is that your --

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those comments to him. I can tell you that what our views are and what he said at the stakeout is what we know his views are, as well.

QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Does the White House have any knowledge of such a commitment?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I’m not going to speak for Prince Bandar. You can direct those questions --

QUESTION: Is there a deal?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- I wouldn’t speculate one way or the other. You can direct those questions to him, but I’m telling you --

Correction: okay, so obviously showing Bandar documents marked NOFORN might be pretty illegal. It's not the type of thing that I or most people are likely to get worked up about enough for it to ever become a real problem for Bush.

Good stuff, Tom. You're right about the hashing out. I'd like everyone to come clean one way or another...and not via McClellan but from the horses' mouthes. --s

btw, mcclellan has got to be *the* worst liar ever.

I miss Ari.
--s