So Much for Fitzmas
NYTimes
The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.
The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.
In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."
That sound you hear are the hopes of the liberal left being dashed against the rocks of disappointment.
Current Events
Posted by AlexC at June 13, 2006 10:02 AM
Kenneth Starr's investigation of President Clinton was soundly criticized with incessant cries all beginning with "Two years and 42 million dollars..." I don't look back that fondly at the Starr Report now, but he brought down a sitting Governor, put folks in the slammer, and got a sitting President disbarred in his home state.
The part of Jovert is now played by Mr. Fitzgerald, who has a weak perjury charge against the VP's Chief of Staff. There may be some guys in the EOB that have some overdue parking tickets.
Maybe we could kill the Independent Prosecutor law and have it stay dead.
Kenneth Starr's investigation of President Clinton was soundly criticized with incessant cries all beginning with "Two years and 42 million dollars..." I don't look back that fondly at the Starr Report now, but he brought down a sitting Governor, put folks in the slammer, and got a sitting President disbarred in his home state.
The part of Jovert is now played by Mr. Fitzgerald, who has a weak perjury charge against the VP's Chief of Staff. There may be some guys in the EOB that have some overdue parking tickets.
Maybe we could kill the Independent Prosecutor law and have it stay dead.
Posted by: jk at June 13, 2006 1:38 PMThe problem for the Dems here was that the Bush administration failed to cooperate. "All Republicans are corrupt," aren't they? They seated a special prosecutor as soon as they could and just waited to see what they'd find. What, they thought the administration didn't know better than to cheat while someone's watching?
When GWB took office in January 2000 I was there. I attended the inaugural, and proudly proclaimed "the White House is finally occupied by grown-ups once again." As these episodes repeat over and over again it is ever clearer that the democrats are boys doing battle with men.
Posted by: johngalt at June 13, 2006 2:28 PMYeah, boys engage in tomfoolery. It takes real overly self assured men to really screw things up.
Posted by: silence dogood at June 13, 2006 2:56 PMOh yes, and I beleive the other argument in the Clinton era went something like "if he didn't do anything wrong, we wouldn't have had to spend so much money investigating him".
Posted by: silence dogood at June 13, 2006 2:58 PMTomfoolery? Democrat attempts to manufacture "culture of corruption" examples can hardly be dismissed as practical jokes.
And if replacing a murderous dictatorship with a self-interested representative government is "really screw[ing] things up" then let's screw up some more, and damn fast.
By the way... did you notice that the de-facto leader of al Qaida was "neutralized" last week? Man, that USAF is some bunch of screw ups.
Seriously Silence, when I read that first comment I wondered why you forgot to include "neener neener." You've got better chops than that.
Posted by: johngalt at June 13, 2006 3:15 PMDid I miss a neener, neener opportunity? Damn. Seriously no one has to manufacture the culture of corruption, it has existed at least since Roman times. The only reason the Republicans are having more issues with it is that they are the party in power, fewer folks are trying to corrupt the minority party. As to the culture part, that has more to do with ethics definitions muddied for years by legalisms from both parties. It always amazed me how much more cut and dried the ethics rules were for me when I worked for a defense contractor than they are for the politicians that award the contracts.
And now for something completely different (to borrow from Monty Python) Silence's parable:
A homeowner has a horrible wine stain on his carpet so he calls a carpet cleaner. The cleaner conducts a phone conversation with the homeowner to assess the situation. He concludes that the combination of Bordeaux and that type of cut-pile warrants immediate and aggressive treatment, for the stain may continue to soak through fibers until the whole carpet is ruined. He arrives the next day to clean the stain, which as he surmised is very bad. It is so bad in fact that the only treatment is douse the affected area with lighter fluid and then the surrounding area with fire suppressant and burn the stain. His truck however is a little low on fire suppressant, but the chance of the stain spreading is so great he decides the treatment is necessary anyway. Unfortunately the fire does get out of control and begins to spread. In an attempt to control the blaze he piles all the most flammable materials in an area over in the corner away from which the fire is spreading. To his consternation a breeze through an open window, common this time of day, changes the fire's course and ignites the flammables. Through heroic efforts he manages to stem and then finally after several hours extinguish the fire. Now the cleaner must replace the carpet, and fast. He calls his buddy who sells carpet on the side to get a replacement piece. Lacking proper tacking tools he opts for an adhesive and even though it says the surfaces have to be clean and dry, his buddy assures him it will work anyway. They work feverishly and glue down all the carpet, but unfortunately as they reach the last corner they notice the first corner starting to peel up. They press it back down only to see it peel somewhere else. Round and round they go for an hour attempting to get the carpet to adhere. Finally in disgust the cleaner sends his buddy away and hires a carpet installer to properly install new carpet. The installer does not have the proper shade of gray though, so he substitutes a nice blue but does a fabulous job on the installation and the new carpet is flawless. The homeowner inspects the new carpet and declares the job a complete success.
Posted by: silence dogood at June 14, 2006 3:27 PMWould I be disbarred if I said "Neneer-neener?"
I sense we may be agreeing that the "Special Prosecutor" function is fraught with peril. Better to encourage transparency and allow the voters to make decisions.
Posted by: jk at June 14, 2006 3:45 PMYou've got me speechless Silence. I've already used the word "Huh?" once this week and that is my limit.
Posted by: johngalt at June 15, 2006 2:28 PM | What do you think? [8]