Remember the words of John Dean in "Worse than Watergate"

[LittleClarkie]

if this current bunch is stonewalling, whether it is a request for more information or documents or an investigation, it is ALWAYS because they're hiding something.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/04/int04019.html

"In the Nixon administration, the stonewalling really didn’t start in earnest until Watergate was fairly far along, and when it was starting to threaten the White House. With the Bush administration, it really started in the 2000 campaign. Bush and Cheney were able to successfully stonewall their way through the 2000 campaign. I offer several important examples. The press never pushed them, never pressed them for the information. And they got away with it. And then they took their stonewalling from their campaign, and it morphed into continued stonewalling right in the White House, which is the reason I pick examples with the campaign and track them right into the White House.

Let me give you a “for example.” Cheney’s health came up very early, right after he was selected by Bush. He has stonewalled and refused to supply any kind of relevant medical data where any outside physician could examine that data and tell us how healthy or sick this man really is. Obviously I suspect there’s a reason for that, more than his privacy. If Dick Cheney were running a committee to select the Vice President, given his health, he’s the last guy he would select. It is just too tenuous. You’ve to also remember, as I point out in the book, that Cheney had a quadruple bypass. They have about a 20-year life expectancy, until they really are questioned as to how much longer the bypass will be effective. Cheney’s 20 years runs out in the middle of the 2004 campaign."

(Interesting interview I found looking for the exact quote)

[Kagemusha]

1. Uhhhh... Cheney DID oversee the vetting of VP candidates.

It just wasn't a committee...

[NativeTexan]

7. Yeah, Cheney looked and looked and all he could find was....

....HIMSELF!!!

[napi21]

2. I always pay attention to John Dean. He's a very perceptive

lawyer, and he has the background experience to recognize exactly what's going on here!

I have his book, and I still think it's one of the best I've read in the last few years!

[LittleClarkie]

3. I skimmed it before the 2004 election. I should go back and read it more

fully now.

Indeed, I reckon he must know what he's talking about.

[AtomicKitten]

4. great read.

he should write a follow-up.

[napi21]

5. I think he will write a follow-up, AFTER Shrub is out of the WH,

however that happens!!!!!

Maybe with a title like "I told You So!"

[AtomicKitten]

6. we WILL get on the other side of this, I have no doubt in my mind

It's just the getting there that is killing us!!!!

Dean will have quite a book then!

[LosinIt]

9. I almost had to take the book away from my husband, worried about his BP

He was reading it with a running dialog of, "Bastards! Sons of Bitches! Cocksuckers!" That is next in line for me when I finish Fooled Again.

[OneBlueSky]

8. and when a Cabinet member refuses to be sworn . . .

when testifying before a Congressional committee, it's ALWAYS because his testimony contains lies -- and very likely a LOT of them . . .

the really tragic part of all this, though, is that the Republicans doing the questioning KNOW why he's not swearing to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" . . . the KNOW he's lying to them, and they're okay with it . . . more than that, they're in collusion with him to prevent the truth from being told to the American people . . .

and they either see noting wrong with this (amoral), or understand that it's wrong and do it anyhow (unethical) . . . in either case, it's also illegal . . .

[mim]

10. That goes for Ohio too

The powers-that-be in Ohio won't let anyone see the actual 2004 election results. Why do you suppose that is?