[Photo via Fire Dog Lake.]
Indictments should be handed out any minute now, and according to this bombshell, one of the big fish has caved, and is giving testimony that could lead directly to Dick Cheney, and maybe even higher. The other name to watch in the days ahead is Ari Fleischer, the all but forgotten shyster who brought a new level of dishonesty to the White House press room.
Remember, this has next to nothing to do with the outing of an undercover operative. It is all about the concentrated and coordinated effort from the the very top to obscure the truth about iraq at any cost to keep Americans ignorant and sheepishly devoted to a bogus war. It’s about deception on a scale unimaginable in a free country with a free press. It’s about a ruthless campaign to suppress the truth by smearing and slandering, and embracing criminality in the process.
What we will see in the months ahead will, I believe, expose the soft underbelly of the Bush spin machine and render it broken. But don’t expect Rove and Bush and Cheney to go gentle into that good night. The great Bullmoose opines that their response is utterly predictable:
No, if he indicts, nothing else will matter to the GOP smear team than sullying the reputation of the special counsel. Hopefully, he has no unpaid parking tickets, has never jaywalked or removed a label from a mattress. If he has committed these misdeeds, we will see them advertised as a screaming headline on Drudge. They will do a “South Carolina” number on Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald will become the anti-Ken Starr to the right. He will be characterized as a zealous out of control prosecutor. The ACLU will be enlisted by the Norquist crowd to defend their brave persecuted leader, Mr. Rove. The right will wail that they are the victims of modern Palmer Raids with innocent leaders such as DeLay and Rove being swept out of power by a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. Wasn’t Fitzgerald seen at Blockbuster furtively renting a Michael Moore video and surfing Moveon.org?
All of the pack that relentlessly pursued Clinton will kvetch about the “criminalization of politics.” They will see no irony or hypocrisy in their complaint because this is a fight about preserving power not maintaining consistency. The conservative standard is clear – when a Democratic President is the target it is about the “rule of law” and when the “victim” is a Republican it is about the “criminalization of politics.” It is particularly rich that Tom DeLay, the relentless pursuer of Clinton, is making this claim. One wonders whether he agonized over this injustice with Casino Jack Abramoff and Righteous Ralph Reed as they jetted over the Atlantic on the way to their golfing outing in Scotland.
So be prepared; poor Fitzgerald is about to be drawn and quartered. But he’s a smart guy, and he surely knows this is coming. I suspect he’s paid all his parking tickets.
I really feel we are at a turning point. The Delay indictment was just for openers but this one is the real thing, because it goes right up to the very top. It may well lead directly to Bush, especially if, as the Daily News article reportedly implies, one of the fat ladies sings. Then it’s really over. Fingers tightly crossed as liberals brace for a near-delirious outbreak of schadenfreude.
1
By Pug
This is about “the rule of law”.
This is about “the rule of law”.
Repeat after me.
October 18, 2005 @ 6:35 am | Comment
2
By Shanghai Slim
We are desperately overdue for a large serving of justice these days. Someone must pay for the monumental fiasco of the Invasion of Iraq.
Even if the principal fault lies with irresponsible, lazy American voters, those who intentionally and cynically misled them must pay.
I want a front row seat at the trials, right next to Madame Defarge. 🙂
October 18, 2005 @ 8:21 am | Comment
3
By Devi
What are the chances Bush will issue an executive order to change the rules? Or Congress will shove something through that will tie the hands of the courts?
October 18, 2005 @ 3:45 pm | Comment
4
By Ivan
Devi:
No chance. The President’s powers to give “executive orders” do not extend to changing the rules of criminal procedure, and if Congress wanted to legislate any changes in criminal procedure they would have to be changed for ALL criminal cases nationwide. It just won’t happen.
And this adminstration never gave a damn about the rule of law anyway. They won’t even think about using the law to defend themeselves. They’ll exhaust their efforts on measures like character assassination, etc
October 18, 2005 @ 4:40 pm | Comment
5
By Ivan
Oh I can just imagine Rove in prison.
“Squeal like a pig, boy!” And his, um, friends will make him sing:
“Oh I’m your personal Prison Bitch I am!
I’m totally within your power!
Your personal prison bitch, I am!
We met in the C-block shower!
Your personal prison bitch, I am,
I grovel with adoration,
Your personal prison bitch I am,
I just wish you’d use lubrication!”
(I didn’t write those lyrics. Sorry I forget who did.)
October 18, 2005 @ 4:44 pm | Comment
6
By Shanghai Slim
The president can, however, issue pardons. Remember the Republican outcry when Clinton issued a volley of pardons during his last days in the White House?
I wonder if those same outcries would be heard if Dubya pardoned Scooter … or … Cheney. :-0
October 18, 2005 @ 9:41 pm | Comment
7
By Other Lisa
There’s another great word I learned years ago, post-Sarajevo – “Zluradost” – it means about the same thing as “Schadenfreude,” which is to say, enjoying the well-deserved suffering of one’s enemies.
October 19, 2005 @ 1:49 am | Comment
8
By Sam_S
“I wonder if those same outcries would be heard”
Sure! Just not from the same people.
October 19, 2005 @ 1:53 am | Comment
9
By Ivan
Slim,
The President can isssue pardons, but only AFTER the criminals have been convicted.
And he cannot issue a pardon to himself. (Or at least it would make a VERY interesting Constitutional case if he did.)
October 19, 2005 @ 3:03 am | Comment
10
By Ivan
Oops, oh wait: I was partly wrong.
The President CAN issue pardons even for crimes which have not been prosecuted. Ford did that for Nixon.
But the political fallout would be beyond catastrophic for Bush if he did that.
October 19, 2005 @ 4:11 am | Comment
11
By richard
Reagan did it for Poindexter after Iran-contra, one of the grossest miscarriages of justice in our history.
October 19, 2005 @ 7:39 am | Comment
12
By Seth
Don’t you think it’s sick that those left wing extremists are a bit pathetic these days? Are personal attacks and political warmongering the only things the Left can do these days? If there’s really something wrong with Bush or Karl Rove, how come they are still not in jail?? Can you explain that to me??? Also last time I checked, Bush’s approval ratings are on the rebound. So if you are dead set against anything America stands for, and you are determined to destroy the greatest free country on the planet, maybe you should be a Chinese person! Or a Islamist! Stupid ****
October 19, 2005 @ 5:41 pm | Comment
13
By richard
Hi Seth! Gee, let’s see, why isn’t Rove in jail…? Maybe it’s because he hasn’t been charged with anything yet, as the prosecutor isn’t finished with his investigation? Patience, my lad. Delay isn’t in jail either. These things take time. Fitz was appointed by President Bush, who vowed that he wanted to identify and punish those who committed this “serious offense.” Does that mean Bush is trying to destroy America?
Bush’s approval “on the rebound”? Where did you hear that? Up from 38 to 38.5 percent? Ha.
“Dead-set against everything America stands for”? Like phony wars, torture, smearing, exposing undercover agents for politcal games, obstruction of justice? Maybe Bush is the one destroying this country, and we are the ones trying to save it.
October 19, 2005 @ 6:23 pm | Comment
14
By Ivan
Richurd,
I em with Seth, what kind of americin are you, if your so smart then why is our President not in jale maybe he can pardon you when you come back from Frans.
Sincerely yours,
Ivan the Freeper
October 19, 2005 @ 11:26 pm | Comment