.. if Shrub lied to Fitzgerald as glibly as he lied in the above statements, then his ghost and Tricky Dick’s ghost someday may have the chance the swap stories — in hell — about what it feels like to be an unindicted co-conspirator.
Back to Main
October 19, 2005
WB: What Did He Know and When Did He Know It?
Comments
Of course that first article date should be 2005, not 2003…
Posted by: Rob in Vermont | Oct 19 2005 17:24 utc | 1
Your eyar is wrong – should be 2005 (not 2003) for the most recent quote
Posted by: Robert | Oct 19 2005 17:42 utc | 2
what he said … year should be 2005 in first and second-to-last quotes.
Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 19 2005 17:49 utc | 3
The fact that President Bush wasn’t under oath when questioned by investigators might not get him off the hook, legally speaking.
Well – a second one has made a deal with Fitzgerald now:
Now, those close to the investigation say that a second Cheney aide, David Wurmser, has agreed to provide the prosecution with evidence that the leak was a coordinated effort by Cheney’s office to discredit the agent’s husband.
Hey, Wurmser is PNAC!
The battle noise has come nearer to the oval office, but it is not there yet. Fitzgerald needs to flip one major gal/guy. Hannah and Wurmser are not enough. Someone really near to Bush – Miers would be a good source and a soft target. Hmm – lets sit back and enjoy the Whiskey. The plot just starts to unfold.
If I were half as cynical as I try to be I would be thinking that the iron hand under the velvet glove that is the zionist lobby has just revealed itself.
David Wurmser just the same as his co-rat John Hannah came to the ‘party’ via the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
The meetings between Fitz and McNulty may well have been to iron out a deal where Larry Franklin goes down but all of the major players walk. In return AIPAC ensures that their guys give up the greedy wideboys (Karl and Scooter), and their guys (Hannah and Wurmser) cop a plea and get very mild punishment if any.
I could go on and point out all the virtues (for AIPAC) of this arrangement but they are pretty self evident.
Of course anyone trying to articulate this opinion could easily be written off as an anti-semite. What is more anti-semitic than alleging a vast jewish conspiracy. Except of course this whole deal has bugger all to do with Judaism and everything to do with keeping the wheels turning in the long running and highly efficient federal money laundry known as the Israeli Lobby.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 19 2005 21:03 utc | 6
As far as the little piggys I can’t get what personal legal jepordy they were in that would make them squeal. Sure short term it would be a hassle and expensive to fight whatever it is but jail will never happen, as we can be certain the DC District court will find a way to let them off if Bush doesn’t pardon everyone first. Long term taking one for the team will always be rewarded. On the other hand being a tattle tale and or traitor is certain porfessional death.
Don’t tell me they are feeling guilty about propogandizing us into the war or somehow feeling bad about the bodies stacking up because of it. When was the last time a political player of any stripe worried about those things.
Posted by: rapier | Oct 19 2005 21:12 utc | 7
Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way,” the source said.
I found the choice of words from a source close to the President humorous.
Posted by: bcf | Oct 19 2005 21:26 utc | 8
Fitz doesn’t have to take Bush down. Once the strong men in the administration are down, Bush is all by himself, and we all know from experience he doesn’t have what it takes. He is totally incompetent, and I think knows it. Best just to let him turn in the wind and wither on the vine. Undicted co-conspirator would be nice, but it gives him too much credit. His brains wouldn’t fit between Nixon’s little toe and its toe-nail.
Let Bush suffer the worst punishment — public humiliation until he resigns and slashes his wrists in shame.
Posted by: Knut Wicksell | Oct 20 2005 0:47 utc | 9
@ Debs
Interesting conjecture. “The lobby” plays the long game, and can foresee a probable Democratic president after January 2009, so protecting their own agents from the principal onus while shafting the mainline Republicans does indeed seem like a plausible strategy, especially given the sad-but-true fact that the Dems are every bit as contaminated by Likud-think as the Republicans.
Probably the spin doctors and gatekeepers will once again succeed in forcing the genie of aroused public opinion back into the green bottle of manufactured assent. Nevertheless, in this brief entre acte it’s a lot of fun to watch the frantic scurrying to keep the naked boobs of Justice Triumphant from public view, though not, of course, in the Ashcroftian sense.
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Oct 20 2005 5:32 utc | 10
“slashes his wrists in shame.”
Assumes, wrongly, that people like the Chimpster know shame…
Posted by: gmac | Oct 20 2005 22:10 utc | 11