If this was just a mid-level leak by a Democratic sympathiser (certainly not impossible), why would the writer of the article put in a ‘rebuttal’ from the Cheney camp?

As I said, I also agree with Kim that any resignation is unlikely. I think this is just part of the standard power-struggle between factions close to the President.

Another reason that resignation is very unliely that unless and until a new VP was confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Congress, Speaker Pelosi would stand first in line to the Presidency.

That’s not how I read the article at all. The information about diplomats slandering Cheney probably came from an ‘informed source’ inside the State Department, as part of a Rice-Cheney power struggle.

Or it could be some conceited mid-level public servant within State that has democrat loyalties, gosh knows there’s enough of them breaking the secrecy laws by leaking anti-terror programs to the NYT. Hey, I can name two examples of the type right off the bat.

Q: Where do you think the info in the paragraph quoted came from?

A: Some person – according to the article.

Egads, an anonymous European diplomat with a disparaging remark about Cheney? Hold the presses! Who could that lonely critic possibly be? To spin that sheerest of gosamer into some bewildered rambling about Cheney’s mental health doesn’t do Hoagland any credit. And if you think Bush won’t be returning Cheney’s calls then you’re not thinking.

That’s not how I read the article at all. The information about diplomats slandering Cheney probably came from an ‘informed source’ inside the State Department, as part of a Rice-Cheney power struggle.

Fitzmas is over, and the one present you did get doesn’t look like it’s built to last. What is the penalty for grand jury perjury anyway? Isn’t it a five-year suspension from the bar and then back to work as usual on Monday morning?

I don’t care about Libby’s conviction, it’s a storm in a teacup as far as I’m concerned. If I was in the USA I would almost certainly not vote Democratic – I’m not one of the pro-Democratic people commenting on this blog.

I’m not sure why you might think I’m pro-Democratic just because I say the WaPo is right-wing. You may wish to note my previous comment where I reject the usual myth of Woodward as some brave liberal hero stepping forward to protect his country from the evil Nixon.

If Cheney resigns, any Vice-Presidential nominee would have to be confirmed by the House of Representatives (nb – not the Senate as with Cabinet officers because the HoR selects the President and Vice-President if the electoral college cannot reach a decision).

House AND Senate. The procedure for confirming a replacement VP is not the same as the procedure for selecting a President if the electoral college cannot decide. Text of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution is here: http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html#25

Cheney will not resign, IMO, and any speculation about possible scenarios will remain just that. No Republican likely to be confirmed could possibly be trusted by the current Administration. A Rice nomination would be so harshly attacked in confirmation hearings as to be practically impossible.

Yairs, Craigie, the longer the better. I love to see them done slowly.

Good to see you support the repeal of the 22nd amendment .

As they say, a week’s a long time in politics and we’ve got almost two years until the next US milestone. I only hope we get two strong, quality candidates this time.

Our own election should be interesting. I look forward to seeing how Labour performs without a psycho in charge. Rudd will be super-smooth in debates (assuming Brian Burke keeps his mouth shut), but the problems will start when the supporting cast gets in the spotlight. Witness Kelvin Thompson this week – what was he thinking? I wonder what sleazy backroom deal could lead an aspiring AG to give a character reference to a notorious drug lord?