Waiting for Fitzgerald - Page 261

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-26-2005, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
by now, I'd think you guys would be embarassed from your past 50 "here comes the end" stories to at least wait until something hits before gloating.

Wait, what about the upcoming invasion of Syria? Ha Ha Ha!

I don't think Gattigap's gloating hinges on any result, or indictments. Rather, he and I are relishing the discomfort caused to the fine, upstanding and ethical public servants leading our government -- who are OH so much better than that corrupt Clinton crowd.

On another note -- Despite prior statements, I think it is long odds that Bush will fire ANYONE not indicted for a felony. Only way that might change is because he is so relatively weak politically now -- harder to carrry off the big FU this administration so loves. (Seen by his recent efforts to appease the small government conservatives.)

Don't worry, Hank . . . this show won't end until at least 2008.

S_A_M

BTW: Hear about Cindy Sheehan preparing an old-fashioned "die-in" in front of the White House? Lunatic.

The only good I see her doing is making my gal Hillary look positively moderate by comparison.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-26-2005, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

On another note -- Despite prior statements, I think it is long odds that Bush will fire ANYONE not indicted for a felony.

Doesn't that in part depend critically on whether there's any kind of report from Fitzgerald? If there's no report and no indictment for a felony, there's basically nothing--not even a majority of a grand jury thought there was probable cause (or whatever the legal standard is).

But, if he issues a report laying out the evidence, even though there's no indictment (perhaps he didn't even seek the charge, or the g.j. didn't bite), it could be pretty damaging. Especially if a cigar was involved.

bilmore · 10-26-2005, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
This Fitzgerald is a Republican, isn't he? Who'd have thought that he would hate America so, and give aid and comfort to our enemies?

Why do you think he's doing that? By all accounts, he's a reasonable guy, with no agenda other than to fulfill the mission he was given. C'mon, man, stick to the substance of the investigation.

You know - Wilson's lies, and what steps were reasonable in responding to the most egregious and public of them.

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-26-2005, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Why do you think he's doing that? By all accounts, he's a reasonable guy, with no agenda other than to fulfill the mission he was given. C'mon, man, stick to the substance of the investigation.

You know - Wilson's lies, and what steps were reasonable in responding to the most egregious and public of them.

Thanks, Bilmore. (Deep Breath now.)

Goddamn State Department and CIA. Its them that hate America!

(Only in Washington!

)

S_A_M

bilmore · 10-26-2005, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Goddamn State Department and CIA. Its them that hate America!

Why do you think that? By all accounts, they're knowledgable, committed people fighting for their sincere beliefs, all of which have a goal of a better America and a better world. Stick to the substance of the subject, Pensk . . . I mean, SAM.

Like, why do career State employees believe that they, an unelected group with most of its origins in a past liberal appointment process, have the right to actively work against an elected president and an elected Congress in pursuing its visions and strategies for America? Do they not serve, and serve at the pleasure of, that president? Do they not have a duty to serve that president's goals and strategies?

(Oh, wait, maybe that IS treason.)

Not Bob · 10-26-2005, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Like, why do career State employees believe that they, an unelected group with most of its origins in a past liberal appointment process, have the right to actively work against an elected president and an elected Congress in pursuing its visions and strategies for America? Do they not serve, and serve at the pleasure of, that president? Do they not have a duty to serve that president's goals and strategies?

(Oh, wait, maybe that IS treason.)

And yet many in the GOP cite the alleged military/DoD/Louis Freeh disapproval of/footdragging to delay Clinton Administration policies as a good thing.

bilmore · 10-26-2005, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
And yet many in the GOP cite the alleged military/DoD/Louis Freeh disapproval of/footdragging to delay Clinton Administration policies as a good thing.

"Many"? Who?

Is that like the "many" liberals who believe that Saddam should be returned as the leader of Iraq, based on the postings on Democratic Underground?

Are we speaking of "most"? "A lot"? "Some"? "One I read about in TNR"?

Is it important to you that State and CIA seem to have more than a "fringe" of such people?

Secret_Agent_Man · 10-26-2005, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
And yet many in the GOP cite the alleged military/DoD/Louis Freeh disapproval of/footdragging to delay Clinton Administration policies as a good thing.

C'mon Not Bob, cut it out. PoPD.

We know that conservatives and Republicans are principled folk, and not at all results-oriented, unlike those nattering nabobs of the looney left that have knocked the moral compass of the Dimwits so askew that they've accepted a corrupt, pork-barelling Grand Kleagle as the conscience of their party. The babyjesuschristsuperstar weeps at their willful disregard of his righteous teachings and the love that we try to spread (platonically) through the UMC.

Come to the light Not Bob. You are a good man at heart, unlike many of your irredeemable fellow supporters of the corrupt, plantation style racist policies of the Dimwitocrats. Though I fear that Sidd and Ty may be too far gone (sorry, Ty@50), perhaps if you lead enough of your brethren to the light we can all await the rapture together without being forced to exercise our Second Amendment rights all over their asses in moral and ethical self-defense. Feel the love, Not Bob (platonically). NTTAWWT, npi, sts.

S_A_M

P.S. Now, if only I could photoshop.

Sexual Harassment Panda · 10-26-2005, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
C'mon Not Bob, cut it out. PoPD.

We know that conservatives and Republicans are principled folk, and not at all results-oriented, unlike those nattering nabobs of the looney left that have knocked the moral compass of the Dimwits so askew that they've accepted a corrupt, pork-barelling Grand Kleagle as the conscience of their party. The babyjesuschristsuperstar weeps at their willful disregard of his righteous teachings and the love that we try to spread (platonically) through the UMC.

Come to the light Not Bob. You are a good man at heart, unlike many of your irredeemable fellow supporters of the corrupt, plantation style racist policies of the Dimwitocrats. Though I fear that Sidd and Ty may be too far gone (sorry, Ty@50), perhaps if you lead enough of your brethren to the light we can all await the rapture together without being forced to exercise our Second Amendment rights all over their asses in moral and ethical self-defense. Feel the love, Not Bob (platonically). NTTAWWT, npi, sts.

S_A_M

P.S. Now, if only I could photoshop.

Wow. Did you take the Berlitz immersion course in Penskese?

bilmore · 10-26-2005, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Wow. Did you take the Berlitz immersion course in Penskese?

Yeah, combined with the avatar change, I had to really look at the user name closely to see if we were being scammed.

Sexual Harassment Panda · 10-26-2005, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
You've not been reading the talking points at all, have you, boy?

The "arabs" are our friends. "Islam" is a religion of peace. It's only the bastardizers of the religion of peace that have taken it to the jihad.

I believe the right was against arab unity before they were for it.

bilmore · 10-26-2005, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I believe the right was against arab unity before they were for it.

I'm even more fair-weather than that. I'm for it, unless it goes in the direction of the Jihadis, and then I'm agin' it.

Gattigap · 10-26-2005, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

I don't think Gattigap's gloating hinges on any result, or indictments. Rather, he and I are relishing the discomfort caused to the fine, upstanding and ethical public servants leading our government -- who are OH so much better than that corrupt Clinton crowd.

Yez.

sebastian_dangerfield · 10-26-2005, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
(CNN) -- A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election were held this year, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday.
[/IMG]

Alas, Reuters is reporting the Dems will doggedly stick to their plan to run an actual, named candidate in 2008.

sebastian_dangerfield · 10-26-2005, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm even more fair-weather than that. I'm for it, unless it goes in the direction of the Jihadis, and then I'm agin' it.

Don't fret. You'll never have to admit your two-facedness on the issue. Arab unity is the cold fusion of geopolitics. You could sooner train colonies hedgehogs to perform Civil War re-enactments...

in uniform.