1. The indictments against Tom Delay will get thrown out of court faster than Colin Firth getting tossed from a Young Life meeting.

Delay will be pardoned by Bush before a trial begins.

2. The tossing of the indictments will make page C-24 of the NYTimes and the WaPo.

Bush will follow his Daddy's strategy and say the pardoning of Delay is due to Delays years of service to the Country and because of his patriotism. The pardoning of Delay will make it to the want ad's section of the Fridley Gazette.

3. Patrick Fitzgerald's got nothing on anyone inside at the White House. Oh, he's going to toss around some indictments, but nobody at the White House is going to be even close to trouble.

Fitzgerald's got reams of material on 22 people inside and outside of the White House. After Bush pardons Delay, he will have set precedent that he cares more about loyalty than the constitution and the law. Indictments will be served and the right wing media will ramp up it's talking points rhetoric about the "criminalization of politics."

4. Joe Wilson will host a reality TV show in 2006; Valerie Plame will be a regular bit player, with one of those thin rectangles over her eyes.

Several more aides to Bush and Cheney as well as former aides to Colin Powell will come forward with information about the hijacking of the intelligence services and specific details of how intelligence was manipulated to get us into war. There will be a rash of unexplained mysterious suicides and allegations of pedophelia across the eastern United States.

5. By this time next year, there will be a pullout from Iraq. By the media. There "won't be a story" there anymore; while there'll be a low-level insurgency, it will neither pose a credible threat of civil war nor of toppling the Iraqi government. The Iraqi economy will have passed out of "Dead Cat" territory, and even most of the Sunni will have turned on the terrorists. And that, of course, won't be a story.

By this time next year, the war in Syria will have spread into Iran and the Saudi Government will have been toppled by militants loyal to al-Zarqawi. Chechnian rebels detonate a massive radiological weapon in Moscow killing 1800 instantly and injurying thousands leaving large parts of the city unhabitable. The materials used for the explosive device are traced to stockpiles of weapons grade material stolen after the budget for the non-proliferation had been cut then diverted to pay for the continuing war in Afghanistan effectively leaving the material unsecured. Republicans will continue to pursue their investigation against Hillary Clinton for allegations that she inappropriately attempted to sell Girl Scout cookies through inproper channels - specifically her fathers workplace.

Just hunches.

Um...yeah.

We'll call you. Thanks.

Doug:
You can't pardon someone who hasn't been convicted, moron. Of course, I'm sure you've already convicted him, based on your intimate knowledge of the case.
Check the sky. It's blue here.

I think except for Iraq (which will continue to stabilize now that the administration has decided to base its foreign policy on reality) Doug has pretty much hit it on the head. There will be fewer aids comming forth and fewer (no?) suicides as well, and a possibility of the total exposure and partial deconstruction of the Delay machine.

The president and GOP leadership are wounded, there is blood in the water, and it has no longer become suicidal for the media to question the administration. There is a lot about the administration they know or suspect but havn't been able to confirm and the long knives are going to come out.

Question for Mitch: Why are you supporting a president who is willing to veto any legislation he gets banning the use of torture by US forces?

Ahh Mitch . . and then you woke up from this dream to face the nightmare it is. This admin will slowly implode upon itself.

Just one question, if everything was exactly the same, but the admin was democrat, would you be defending them with the same fervor. . . I didn't think so.

Get some rest

Flash

Hey Flash--if everything was exactly the same, but the administration was democrat, would you be attacking them with the same fervor? Didn't think so.

Flash,

STEP AWAY FROM THE DAILY KOS!

And the Strib, for that matter.

An organized effort to create the impression of wrongdoing via bogus, blowaway indictments gotten via tame, party hack DAs (see Mauer County vs. Eibensteiner) does not equal implosion.

The big scandal, as we'll see within the next two years, is the Dems' specific abuse of the legal system to try to jimmy the '06 election.

Terry -- Yes, and I have. See, I have this objective streak in me. I will not defend the indefensible, but the Right seems very comfortable with that.

Mitch, you still didn't answer the question:

--if everything was exactly the same, but the admin was democrat, would you be defending them with the same fervor

The difference between you and me is not Left and Right. I want what is best for the citizens, you just want what is Right and ta hell with anything else.

Flash

If everything were the same but the administration were Democratic, would I defend them from unjust harassment with the same fervor? Absolutely. Without a question.

"The difference between you and me is not Left and Right. I want what is best for the citizens, you just want what is Right and ta hell with anything else."

Nope. I believe (as did the voters last fall) that the Administration is DOING what's best for citizens (with some exceptions that I've noted elsewhere; spending must slow down, government must shrink, we could possibly use a better SCOTUS nominee).

There is nobody, anywhere in this nation, who is more concerned and direct about acting in this nation's best interest than I am.

Nobody.

Flash,

You, of all people, are in no position to be criticizing other people's predictions. If you know what I mean...

LF

Flash-
I've never met an objective person. Non-partisan, disinterested, yes, but objective? Uh-unh.
You're no more 'objective' then Mitch is.

I think it was back in 2002 that we first started to hear predictions about the "administration imploding" and that it was only a matter of time before Bush was impeached. Still waiting...

By the way Mitch, I clearly am more concerned and direct about acting in this nation's best interest than you are, despite your claims to the contrary. In fact, I even have a t-shirt that says "#1 American" to prove it. You think you're better than me?

My "Better Than Elder" T-shirt AND bumper sticker should answer that question.

I can do you punks one better because I have a T-shirt that says:

MITCH AND THE ELDER ARE FAGS!

The lefties seem to think it's pretty funny.

Mitch, I'm culturally challenged: what's the scoop with Colin Firth and the Young Life meeting -- a movie reference?

Nancy,

Young Life = national Christian youth group. Hugh is a major proponent.

Colin Firth = famously dissipate, hard-drinking, sexually profligate movie star.

No movie reference - just a comparison of absurd extremes.

"MITCH AND THE ELDER ARE FAGS!"

Interesting that this is the ferst we've heard of this.

Anyone have details?

I will post them on my blog.

I've become curious as to just what it is about Mitch's writing that both draws in the deluded and so efficiently convinces them to expose the full extent of their delusions.

So, Mitch, what _is_ the best lure to use when trolling for dingbats? It's probably something glow-in-the dark that'll require me to get a browser update to see it, but enquiring minds want to know.

Indicting Tom Delay to prove he’s a bad guy is like giving the Scarecrow a diploma to prove that he’s intelligent -- it’s just symbolic. Even without an indictment to his credit, Delay could be a poster boy for everything that’s wrong with politics and government. On the other hand, the motivation and mechanism for his indictment is much more insidious because it‘s camouflaged in self-righteousness. Delay’s accused of fudging on laws promoted by individuals to protect their own incompetence when trying out Delay Delay. To paraphrase journalist I.F. Stone, the difference between strippers and liberals is that strippers never claim their naked pursuits are in the “public interest.”

Nancy: You're not alone in your confusion; it's another movie reference fumble by Mitch. Colin FIRTH is the priggish love interest of Renee Zellweger in the "Bridget Jones" movies. Profligacy is antithetical to Firth's reputation.

Colin FARRELL, on the other hand, is indeed a notorious libertine.

Yep. I mix up movie stars. Don't think about 'em much.

You want encyclopedic knowledge of movies and actors, go see Sheila O'Malley.

For me? Well, all I have is flawless predictions.

Tom may not be convicted but he is still taking one well deserved kick in the posterior.I know I'm looking forward to seeing the mugshots.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/20/Delay.booking/index.html

As far as Karl and Scooter go things do not look good. I'd like to see those mugshots too. Too bad they can't get Cheney in there with them. Mmmm hmmm what comes around goes around.

CNN: "Hand lotion sales up 350% in Blue States"

Thanks, Geoff and Ernst for the reference. I know of Firth from "Pride and Prejudice" and "BJ's Diary" but don't pay attention to his off-camera activities.

Colin Farell makes more sense. Thanks for the UPDATE, Mitch!

Actually Kermit.. You CAN pardon someone beforehand, sorry fella.. you got that a bit off.

As for predictions.

Mitch, your "prediction" on Fiztgerald is not really a prediction, it's a statement about whether there is proof, or are you predicting there isn't proof?

The noise is that there is a pretty sizable amount of proof, all you have here is spin, why?

Regarding Delay, Delay is in trouble, make no mistake, he may not get convicted, but he probably is going to lose his seat to a different Republican. That would be MY prediction. Whatever you may think of Ronnie Earle, which is mostly just Delay spin, he convicts more of his own party than the other. Whether they are conservatives or liberals, is Earle the ONLY liberal in Texas, was he the ONLY liberal involved in the indictments or trials?

Regarding Iraq, I won't go to Doug's length, but I'll bet you $50 that you are mostly wrong. I'll bet there are significant attacks, that the government is fractious at best (it has to be, that's what is being enacted), and we're still there losing troops at a rate of more than what, 30 a month sound about right.

Bluntly, your predictions are just so much "blue sky" hopes. If half prove true, good for you, and frankly on Iraq, good for us.

Here's a couple more.

The Government will protect businesses from bankruptcy, lawsuits, criticism by citizens, and anything else ever asked for.

It will enact permanent chanelling of money to Sinclair Group companies, KBR, Halliburton, and most of the Oil Industry members (wait, it did that.. sorry).

See, these are just as ridiculous as your "predictions". They are extreme and unrealistic, but I'm not serious, which would be the difference.

With regard to having the best intersests of the Nation, and being the pre-eminent represetative thereof, Mitch.. I know you, that's crap. You sidestep real challenges faced by your side, dissemble about fixing them, and attack any critic. That's hardly looking for the best course.

PB

PB,

"The noise is that there is a pretty sizable amount of proof, all you have here is spin, why?"

So let me get this straight; you have "the noise", but all I have is "spin?"

I think I see how this works.

"Regarding Delay, Delay is in trouble, make no mistake, he may not get convicted, but he probably is going to lose his seat to a different Republican."

Right. Because of a REPUBLICAN PARTY rule that forbids people who've been indicted from serving in positions like Majority Leader. Which is ENTIRELY the reason that Ronnie Earle, at the bidding of the DNC, brought the charges; to remove by coup a powerful, effective Republican politician that the Dems would *never* be able to oust at the polls.

Flawless, yet "hosed."
http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/001651.html

Flawless, yet "trashed."
http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/006578.html

Taking a mulligan on those two?

Oh Kermit...

What was Caspar Weinberger convicted of? You remember him... He was the guy that Bush Senior pardoned...

Mitch,

You didn't understand me.. Delay is going to be defeated politically, loose his seat AS A REPRESENTATIVE, sorry for the lack of clarity. His approval locally is in the 30's.

As for Spin, Mitch, it is you who says their is no evidence, that is spin. There are PLENTY of reports of LOTS of evidence. I'm simply restating those reports. I suppose you can call that spin if you like, but what credible news source (credible, as in double-sourced), is saying they have no evidence. Without it, you are simply spinning.

Regarding your Fearless (Feckless) Predictions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/20/listening_post/main959358.shtml

It seems perhaps the war is not quite so rosey. Whether you agree or not, I, and MANY others care very much about success in Iraq and elsewhere, which is why we dissent from this disaster referred to as George W. Bush (aka Cheney's boy). Dissent against a poorly lead war is not anything other than patriotic and American. Perhaps Totallitarian control of the news (or at least the desire for it) doesn't bother you, but it leads to the kind of disaster that currently exists in the Sunni areas of Iraq, and what will be a disaster when a theocratic regime controls the Shiite areas and kicks us out, and the Turks invade Kurdistan.

Bin Laden is winning, and you are inadvertantly helping him (I don't mean to say you want to) because we are being beaten in this war by our own ham-handedness and a set of tin ears among the the politically motivated hacks running things here, and in Iraq.

THAT my friend, is my spin..

PB

Here's a prediction...

PB will not learn "word economy".

garbage in = garbage out

E-Blo,

The first was a schedule slip, not a wrong prediction.

Erroneous sources aren't bad predictions. They're someone else's bad call.

The Most Important Criminal Case in American History

James Moore

If special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald delivers indictments of a few functionaries of the vice president’s office or the White House, we are likely to have on our hands a constitutional crisis. The evidence of widespread wrongdoing and conspiracy is before every American with a cheap laptop and a cable television subscription. And we do not have the same powers of subpoena granted to Fitzgerald.

Read the rest. It's fantastic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/the-most-important-crimin_b_9183.html

Hey,

Speaking of hindsight...

For all of you who said it was not FEMA and that the locals didn't ask for help from Brown...

Recent stories have shown just how chaotic FEMA was, and this one pretty well sums up whether "Brownie" was asked...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/20/national/main958221.shtml

PB

As for Badda...

Perhaps your words would be worth their space if you ever did anything but snipe. It's awfully easy to just throw out a 3 second sound bite, it's another to put your opinion out there. Gutless does not equal clever, it equals gutless.

Succinctly,
The Verbosity enabled one.

PB,
While I enjoy your attitude and comments, they sound far too serious and far from playful... relax. (Lighten up, Francis.)

Since I'm writing this, did you ever answer my questions? (You probably haven't... regardless, you're sounding like the Pot calling the Kettle black. Check Lewis Redux and quit your grumbling.)

Anyway, I don't snipe... I just razzed you on not ever meeting Mr. Brevity. (Guts has nothing to do with it... but if it makes you feel better, you're much braver than I am.)

It is clever. Not extremely clever... but I don't try to prove to folks that I'm a genius. As opposed to you. Not that there's anything wrong with it. It's just your bag, and that's fine.

PB, I think you ought to think very, very carefully about the potential results of an indictment of Scooter and whether you really want what will come of it. While you gleefully wait for a potential indictment, it doesn't seem that you've thought carefully about the atmosphere that it would engender. Do you remember the Pentagon Papers and that particular scandal? If you get your way, that may well be the last time anything like that happens.

IF Scooter's indicted, what would it be for? It's almost a foregone conclusion they can't get him for the intentional release of a "covert" operative's name. Certainly not with Plame being in Who's Who as she was. So what would it be for? Most likely it would be for passing confidential information to a newspaper reporter. If so, a conviction for *that* particular crime could go a long way to shutting down reporters. Could you imagine what the White House could do if it decided to consistently go after leakers with the tools you're proposing they use in this case? Especially if it were willing to put reporters in jail to convince them to talk? We could be talking about what would be effectively a climate similar to that in Britain with their Official Secrets Act. At the very least the climate of background reporting would be stiffled, and your complaints about the closed nature of this White House would look polyanish compared to what could come.

Can there be an indictment? Yes, certainly. If you've ever worked for the Feds you know that the regulations and laws governing your behavior are arcane and seemingly infinite (your military experience does give you some feel for it, but it's far worse when you have to get involved with civilian companies, and when you mix civilian companies with confidential information it's quite impossible to get a handle on everything). I doubt that you could ever find any project where you couldn't indict someone somewhere for a violation of some rule, law, or regulation.

Are you willing to create an environment where the government can effectively shut off all leaks by threatening the leakers and those who publicize the leaks? Imagine if GWB were the bully you seem to think he is and he were to jail all your protester buddies by claiming they're leaking classified information. Or that the next Abu Grahib doesn't get publicized because the leakers of this one are jailed (the investigation was classified at the time). Irrespective of the merits of indicting Scooter or whomever you want in this case, you're asking for an environment in which the government has a much freer hand in suppressing bad news and I don't think you want that.

I'll reserve judgement on the likelihood of an indictment. We just don't know enough at this stage, since all we're hearing is spin by those involved who are trying to spin it their own way. Until the prosecutor speaks we really don't know his reasoning and evidence (which is why Earle has been attacked and villified so easily, the hack that he is). But I have to say, Doug, that HP article you posted was the most way-out, thinly sourced, badly reasoned article I've read in a long time. And I thought the Freepers had a corner on paranoid conspiracy theories!

PB, about your off topic post: reread that FEMA article. The official requesting help was a FEMA official from New England sent down there to by FEMA to coordinate the response. The locals (i.e. NO and LA officials) didn't ask for help, a FEMA guy (singular) did! Now, you had a FEMA guy from another part of the country, new in this area and asking for help, but you had the head of FEMA getting the run around from the LA and NO folks who were *supposed* to know the situation, yet were in total disarray and not giving you anything useful or helpful. I can understand a career bureaucrat or political hack appointee getting flustered and not knowing what to do when confronted with inept (at best) local officials. Yes, Brown *should* have blown through the locals and said "just do it," but I can understand and sympathize with him not doing it: he was acting as a typical midlevel flunky rather than a leader. That he was able to think of himself as a midlevel flunky is understandable given how FEMA was integrated into DHS, itself an horrible idea and very probably crippling to FEMA.

Nerdbert,

Its called perjury. Or my personal favorite, lying to FBI agents. Yep its agin the law. He who breaks the law must be taken to the house of pain. Take him to the house of pain !

Nerdbert,

It's also called conspiracy charges, obstruction of justice and witness tampering.

If this case does in fact lead to where it appears to be leading, specifically to the justification and "evidence" for going to war in the first place, Mr. Bush has more to worry about than a few of his buddies going to jail.

As for the HP article I posted being the most way-out, thinly sourced, badly reasoned article you've read in a long time, please explain why Fitgerald would have asked for a copy of the Italian government’s investigation into the break-in of the Niger embassy in Rome?

As for paranoid conspiracy theories, maybe someone should tell Pat Buchanan to get with the program.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/19/17930/510

Phil: I have no problem with them getting someone for perjury, although your side would have people believe that perjury by even the President is no big deal if it's something "personal." As I said, I'll take a wait and see attitude to see what evidence is offered and crimes are alleged -- right now we're left with spin and speculation and that's nothing worth getting worked up about.

I have a big problem if they're going to go off and start criminalizing many of these more innocuous leaks as you and your ilk seem to be salivating for, and I can see that happening if they try the release of confidential information charges. It will give this and future administrations the tools and legitimacy to effectively enforce a code of omerta and that's not a good thing.

Doug: Conspiracy? Yeah, I guess you "moonbats" have that down -- it's your turn now that the other side's in power. But what's this with caring about Buchanan? He's been more marginalized by the Republicans than Lieberman has by the Dems. Nobody's taken anything Buchanan has said seriously in the last decade or so. It's highly ironic that you cite a "moonbat" article about a "wingnut" that nobody cares about.

Why might Fitzgerald asked for the documents? He might have been told that various sources found out about the CIA connection from reporters who investigated that and he needed to find out who'd been involved. There might have been leaks from Italian agents involved in that. There are any number of more innocuous explainations than that the White House was involved.

I have a problem with moonbats/wingnuts on both ends of the spectrum jumping to the most radical possible interpretation of every action in their own social prism. We saw that on the right with Vince Foster and we see that on the left now with Cheney and "the evil Halliburton." You rarely see the evils you guys are alleging occured, and by having folks such as yourself constantly spouting these dire predictions it tends to marginalize you and reduce your trust towards zero. More's the shame, because when something evil does happen it's far easier to get the signal lost in the noise. Tell me now, exactly *how* many of these scandals you guys have been harping on for the last 5 years have had any sort of meaning behind them?

Wow, who would have guessed an innocuous post like this would have garnered over 40 comments?

Silliness aside. Doug? Did you just link to Daily Kos and hoist it up as the unvarnished truth?

Nope. I linked to Kos because I loved what Buchanan said.

Meh. Buchanan's a loon. No surprise there.

"maybe someone should tell Pat Buchanan to get with the program."

We Republicans did; we marginalized him pretty completely in '00.

The only people Buchanan matters to anymore - politically, anyway - are the Kossacks.

Nerdbert..

First, thank you for being one of maybe 2 people (blogger not included) who actually posts responses (even intelligent ones) to challenges offered here by critics of either the blog or it's backers.

Second, the "she's in Who's Who" is not exactly sufficient exhoneration. Moreover, the facts are coming out that Libby outed her, not the press, or "who's who". The data in Who's Who did not indicate she was a CIA officer, it did not indicate she was covert. Libby (and Rove as well) had incumbant responsibilities to check that. As well, outing her, especially in a coordinated way, and especially to several sources, constitues (probably/allegedly) a consipiracy to recriminate. That in itself is a crime. But most likely, the crime for which they'll be charged is first and foremost, obstruction and lying to the FBI.

As to the "pergury isn't pergury" if it's personal, that's not really what most of us have said at all. What we said was, lying about an affair is not sufficient cause to remove a President from Office. In short, it's not sufficient justification to undermine/destroy his ability to govern and to distract the country from real business. Part of the blame for the lack of attention to Terrorism belongs to Clinton for being a jackass and having an affair when he was so clearly being watched, but another part, not equal, but still there, belongs to a Republican Congress committed more to salacious charges and embarrassing the President than it was to doing some of the work it should have done.

Libby and Rove are not the President (or Vice President). They can be reasonably tried w/o impact to the ability of Bush to govern. It doesn't take Congress to do so. Moreover, these guys see secure details every day, if they can't be trusted with that detail, then they need to be removed. The President should have already done so given the fact that it is very clear now both of them divulged secret information carelessly at a minimum, purposefully at worst.

So the point is not that the charge is specious, that's hardly true but even if there were validity, the point is that a President is accorded a great deal more deference in his conduct (private) before bringing it to court than is a Chief of Staff, and further that the nature of the President's lie would never result (or darned near never) in charges being filed. Libby's conduct was utterly irresponsible at best, and amounted to revealing state secrets at worst. That crime is prosecutable, and is normally done. They don't put people on trial for lying in divorce cases about affairs, if they did, half the divorcees in the U.S. would be on trial.. and consequently, it would be a violation of the "no cruel or unusual punishment" clause. This was discussed in detail at that time.

Again, though, thank you for being decent, precise, and civil.

Regards,
PB

PB,

I guess we'll have to disagree a bit here. Clinton's lie was not merely a lie to the country as a politician -- that can and often must be forgiven. I found his public denial of the affair in the press rather tragicomic since nobody really believed him. Nor was his behavior as a philanderer. His core offense was interfering with a legal action in a manner that he had to know was criminal. He was, after all, a lawyer and lawyers are routinely disbarred for perjury or interference in affairs of the court. If nothing else, his lies speak volumes as to his core values, which also speaks volumes as to his fitness to lead. That he managed to avoid conviction in the Senate was a tribute to his political skills.

Libby and Rove may be indicted, although I wouldn't bet on either point (by my measure the evidence of serious criminal intent seems thin and the charges available to file seem difficult to prove, but there is still the pressure of justifying the existance of the prosecutor). My point was not that indicting them would affect the running of the government, rather that you have to be careful what you wish for. Rather, it's if you start advocating criminal prosecution for cases such as this you must be willing to live with the consequences of such actions. If you create the precident that these kind of actions are appropriate, you have to be prepared for what this will do to the openness of the gov't in all the other areas. And you have to be prepared for a much more muscular exercise of the law once it has been used in the manner in which you propose. How many of those war protester friends of yours could be charged with revealing confidential information in a similar manner? Are you willing to make gov't employees unwilling to discuss anything that might be controversial or annoying to those in power? By allowing the conventional standards of behavior required to initiate prosecution you are abeting something that may well chill public discussion of controversial topics by gov't employees. If you've ever been in the gov't you know they can get you for something no matter how careful you are.

A more appropriate response would be to work to marginalize or make politically unaccpetable those who may have done this. However, politics as typically played by the Left in this area have proven to be terribly destructive to their electoral prospects. Do you remember why we have the verb "to bork"? I thought it rather mature of the Republicans to rise above the chance to do that with Ginsberg, who above all others provided a target rich environment (can you say: Did you, Ms. Ginsberg, really support lowering the age of consent for sexual activities to 12 as in the court brief you filed? http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=17779 page 17, footnote 13). Starting with Reagan the balance of power has started to shift, and now the only remaining positions of power left to the Left are the Civil Service and the courts, both of which change more slowly than the political establishment. That the Left is stuck making arguments in this manner is understandable, but it also threatens to again change the rules and not in a way that is particularly good for the country.

As to Libby's comments, explain to us why they were "revealing state secrets." Plame was publicly associated with Wilson, and Plame was publically associated with the CIA. It's going to be very, very difficult to argue that much of what's been discussed so far was confidential or deserved to be. And as a practical matter, the revelations (from wherever they came) served to put in context a rather uninformed and salacious attack on a matter of National Security. Remember that Wilson's column and pretext was rather destroyed by the Senate report. Whatever you think about the information about the background on Wilson's affair, it was truthful and doesn't seem to affected the CIA's abilities negatively.