tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post115672624292161705..comments2023-11-05T23:25:31.498+11:00Comments on Wot Is It Good 4: Isikoff's story stinks. It doesn't add up.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1156837826580089022006-08-29T17:50:00.000+10:002006-08-29T17:50:00.000+10:00i'm with you LeeBi think he's got his eyes on chen...i'm with you LeeB<BR/><BR/>i think he's got his eyes on cheney :-)lukeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13280906371216516750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1156837398721458632006-08-29T17:43:00.000+10:002006-08-29T17:43:00.000+10:00Well, y'all can call me a cockeyed optimist if you...Well, y'all can call me a cockeyed optimist if you like, but I stand by my (b) and (c) choices. Several years ago I knew another U.S. Attorney who was then the same age as Fitz is now. He, too, was a career prosecutor, and was driven to lock up major-league scoff-laws with no regard for political party.<BR/><BR/>When that breed of lawyer smells the blood of a supercreep law-breaker like that - ESPECIALLY elected officials who are violating the public trust - all they think about is taking them out. How well I remember the gleam my old friend would get in his eye when going after a big fish. It appears that Fitz has the biggest of fishes in his sights and I don't yet see any hint that he is backing off. <BR/><BR/>There has been more than one clue in Fitz's performance that has given me a great deal of confidence in not only his intentions, but also his ability to deliver if anyone can. <BR/><BR/>It is sooo hard to be patient, but until and unless I see some contradictory signals coming from the Fitz camp I'll be sticking with (b) and (c). There certainly are some scary possibilities from the political side - pardons, for one - that make me nervous, but a worry that Fitz is secretly on their side?? . . . Not a chance!<BR/><BR/>"<I>The wheels of justice move exceedingly slow and grind exceedingly fine.</I>"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1156807003206346832006-08-29T09:16:00.000+10:002006-08-29T09:16:00.000+10:00oh god, i hope its not a)but i dont have any other...oh god, i hope its not a)<BR/><BR/>but i dont have any other options.lukeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13280906371216516750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1156794784243849772006-08-29T05:53:00.000+10:002006-08-29T05:53:00.000+10:00Hmmm...Option (c) - Unimpeachable? Really though- ...Hmmm...<BR/><BR/>Option (c) - Unimpeachable? Really though- when has that ever stopped them before? They've stooped to just making shit up about people who were "unimpeachable" before.<BR/><BR/>Besides, I'm always alittle suspicious when the media/talking heads assigns the "knight and shinning armour" role to someone. If someone really is the real deal, the media USUALLY crucifys them.<BR/><BR/>Something this important...you'd think you'd hear something derogatory/discrediting about Fitzgerald, at least down at the bottom of the right-wing echo chamber. This administration can't come out and smear Fitzgerald but their surrogates can (and have before). But there's no smear campaign. Weird, huh?<BR/><BR/>Option (b) - Perhaps...Maybe they think Fitzgerald might look the other way when the evidence gets too close to the top if they don't piss him off too much - but that doesn't seem like a very smart strategy. And not Rove's M.O. - it's just flat out not how these people play. <BR/><BR/>Besides, if Fitzgerald really is the prosecutor who never rests, as they say, then he'll throw the guilty parties in the slammer no matter how nice the right-wing talking heads/media are.<BR/><BR/>Option (a) - ug...Yeah, I've entertained that idea before. Especially when my partner (who I've mentioned before works at FOX) told me the republicans at work trusts Fitzgerald. That really struck me as strange. Cause they shouldn't.<BR/><BR/>Any other options? Cause I don't like option a.<BR/><BR/>- Jiminy CricketAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1156758862082124152006-08-28T19:54:00.000+10:002006-08-28T19:54:00.000+10:00I think it is both (b) AND (c). There are many wh...I think it is both (b) AND (c). <BR/><BR/>There are many who, because he was appointed to the U.S. Attorney job in Chicago by bu$h, think he is a Republican. He is not. <BR/><BR/>Read this article in the Washington Post (February 2, 2005):<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55560-2005Feb1?language=printer" REL="nofollow">The Prosecutor Never Rests</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1156743723440092392006-08-28T15:42:00.000+10:002006-08-28T15:42:00.000+10:00it's an interesting question jiminy. i suspect tha...it's an interesting question jiminy. i suspect that it's either a) cos he's on their side b) they don't wanna risk pissing him off or c) he's unimpeachable.<BR/><BR/>i dont really believe it could possibly be c) and i 'pray' that it's not a)<BR/><BR/>they don't touch sibel either :-)<BR/>(except in turkey)lukeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13280906371216516750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1156737347103891692006-08-28T13:55:00.000+10:002006-08-28T13:55:00.000+10:00True. It IS out of character . . . 'ceptin' when ...True. It IS out of character . . . 'ceptin' when they're all holding their collective breath! :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1156734526766986362006-08-28T13:08:00.000+10:002006-08-28T13:08:00.000+10:00a little off topic-I've always wondered why the Re...a little off topic-<BR/><BR/>I've always wondered why the Republicans hadn't geared up the smear machine on Fitzgerald. It's out of character for them, don't you think?<BR/><BR/>- Jiminy CricketAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com