Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
but they won't stop there. They want Rove's head and bush to resign.
After a 2 year investigation all they have is an indictment for Libby lying to investigators. Still nothing on who leaked plame's name...wonder why.
|
stevo,
Your comments, seem truly bizarre, read in the context of a political status quo where Bush's party controls both houses of congress and is putting the finishing touches on a 25 year republican presidential effort to stack the SCOTUS with a clear, handpicked, majority, and where Bush himself promoted the special Counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, in 2001, and recently called his investigation of Bush's own administration, "dignified", and where it is clear that members of Bush's most senior administration staff were permitted to be uncooperative with Fitzgerald's investigation, and in an instance where the President and the VP reacted to Fitzgerald's direct questioning of them, by hiring criminal defense attorneys. Who is it that you suspect are Bush and Rove's antagonists of any stature or political power, outside of circumstances of their own making?
(I see how it's gonna go...now. Sen. Hatch is on CNN blabbering the TP's that if Plame has not served "outside the country" in the last five years, he (Hatch) does not see how Fitzgerald could bring an "obstruction" charge against Libby..... I suspect that we won't soon see the repub spin machine voice concern of the seriousness of deliberately "outing" the classified identity of a CIA staff member, during wartime, by a special asst. to the POTUS and the chief of staff of the "shadow POTUS", Cheney !)
This deserves it's own thread....but I'll initially ask here. What have you (and others who are sympathetic to the points that you've made on this forum about the integrity and effectiveness of the Bush administration, it's alliances, it's policies.....fiscal, social, domestic, foreign, defense, offense....Iraq invasion.....Saddam's WMD and Iraq's links to Al Qaeda....Plame's undercover status at CIA...) been <b>right or accurate</b> about? (Fitzgerald is on TV now, using the words that LIbby "compromiosed the identity of a CIA agent".)
Are you re-examing any of your opinions because of the news of the Libby indictment....or the Miers withdrawal...or the Flanigan DOJ asst. atty. general nomination withdrawal, or the air going out of Bush's SSI "reform" balloon, or the White House retrteat of it's suspension of Davis-Bacon federal wage regulations in NOLA?
Do you gain any recognition that those who disagree with you here seem to consistantly, on major issues...(existance of Iraqi WMD, Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda, Republican federal administration ethics, believability, fiscal restraint, Plame's actual classified employment status, the actual bias of MSM...) end up being more accurate about the actual agenda and in political analysis, and in predicitions, results, consequences, and outcomes, than those who have defended the political status quo?