Sen. Frist, alack, can't trust Sen. Reid

Legally, there are no significant differences between the investor fraud perpetrated by Enron CEO Ken Lay and the prewar intelligence fraud perpetrated by George W. Bush. Both involved persons in authority who used half-truths and recklessly false statements to manipulate people who trusted them. There is, however, a practical difference: The presidential fraud is wider in scope and far graver in its consequences than the Enron fraud. Yet thus far the public seems paralyzed.

Elizabeth de la Vega, a former federal prosecutor, looks at the legal case for indicting the administration for criminal conspiracy and fraud.

She concludes:

The evidence shows, then, that from early 2002 to at least March 2003, the President and his aides conspired to defraud the United States by intentionally misrepresenting intelligence about Iraq to persuade Congress to authorize force, thereby interfering with Congress's lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and making appropriations, all of which violates Title 18, United States Code, Section 371

Whatever the merits of the ultimate case, is there an imaginable reason not to responsibly explore this line of questioning?

Afternote: Just spotted this: "for the sake of democracy, as well as for our standing in the world, we need to show that we think lying to get us into a war is a more serious offense than lying about blow jobs." David Weinberger.