That's what's so frustrating about this sort of thing, the perception that you have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt before you build up anything approac

That's what's so frustrating about this sort of thing, the perception that you have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt before you build up anything approaching ire. This isn't a courtroom, and if you have enough circumstantial evidence that you're 60% sure something shady is going on there is nothing wrong with judging public policy on that basis. Brings to mind the Valerie Plame scandal. We may not know for 20 years what happened and who exactly was involved, but in the meantime the administration at the very least gave the appearance of serious criminal behavior up to the level of the Vice-President and the President, and that's enough. Yet you have people who want proof beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e. a conviction, before they'll even say "Cheney might have been a bad VP".