Now that Scooter’s not just guilty but convicted—Bush has, of course, long ago reneged on his promise to fire anyone “involved” in outing Plame—can we impeach Dick Cheney? ’Cause the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate is swinging round to point right at Shooter’s pasty, bloating, undead flesh. Even AP gets it:

The case laid bare the inner workings of a presidency under siege and the secretive world of Vice President Dick Cheney.

It showed the lengths to which Cheney went in early summer 2003 to discredit administration critic Joseph Wilson. The former ambassador’s assertions had cast doubt on the administration’s justification for having taken the country to war in Iraq. And the Libby case showed the president assisting Cheney in the leaked attacks on Wilson.

The verdict “does great damage to the Bush administration,” said Paul C. Light, professor of public service at New York University. “It undermines the president’s pledge of ethical conduct [snicker]. But the most serious consequence is that it will raise questions about Cheney’s durability in office. It may be time for Cheney to submit his resignation.”

Hmmm… Wonder if the Cheney’s recent health scare is on the up-and-up, or whether he’s shortly going to need to spend more time with his lesbian daughter and his turkey-baster grandchild?

Then again, if the doctors did manage to pump more formaldehyde into Cheney’s collapsing veins, Big Time may end up wondering if it was all worth it.

The trial leaves a trail of unanswered questions leading to the doorsteps of Bush and Cheney.

Testimony and evidence did not clear up whether they directed the leaking of Plame’s identity to the news media.

But the trial did show Bush declassified prewar intelligence that Libby leaked to New York Times reporter Judith Miller, a plan carried out in such secrecy that no one in the government except Bush, Cheney and Libby even knew about it.

Testimony showed the vice president was aware early on that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and told Libby about it. Cheney even scribbled a note to himself a week before Wilson’s wife was exposed asking whether she had sent her husband on the CIA mission to Africa that triggered the controversy.

Cheney also directed Libby to speak with selected reporters to counter Wilson’s accusations. Cheney developed talking points on the matter for the White House press office. He helped draft a statement by then-CIA Director George Tenet. And he moved to declassify some intelligence material to bolster the case against Wilson.

So, what do the Beltway Dem insiders recommend:

[Hillary supporter] Lanny Davis, a lawyer who worked in the Clinton White House during several investigations, said Tuesday that, while Libby was the defendant, “it was Vice President Cheney who was on trial today and who has the responsibility for what Libby did. The vice president has a personal and moral responsibility to take responsibility for what Mr. Libby did at his instruction — and to apologize to Valerie Plame.”

(Davis, of course, sold out your Fourth Amendment rights on Bush’s fake Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, by lending, as the lone Democrat, [cough] legitimacy to its retrospective, putative justification and whitewash of Bush’s illegal and unconstitutional program of warrantless surveillance. What an asshole.)

Apologize?! APOLOGIZE?!??! What’s wrong with these people?! Why is Davis whining about apologies when he should be demanding that Cheney show he’s accountable by resigning?

Meanwhile, of course, Inerrant Boy continues to stonewall:

The White House has never corrected the denials it issued in the fall of 2003 saying neither Rove nor Libby was involved in the leak of Plame’s CIA identity. Political observers doubt any correction will be made.

Yeah, political observers and anyone halfway sane.

Say, didn’t Cheney take some kinda oath of office? Something about “the laws” should be “faithfully executed”? (Not prayerfully executed, you stupid Christianists. Down! Down!) Does declassifying information to attack a political opponent sound like faithfully executing the laws to you?