Or a plea bargain could negate the need for a trial.
All in all, I feel like the kid that got underwear for Christmas instead of the Playstation.
As too the trickier issue of what the hell Sevastopol was talking about:
OK, we start off pretty well with a simple declarative sentence. There may differing opinions as to the accuracy of the truth-value Sev has applied to it, but so far, we have clarity.
Unclear as to who “The majority” refers to. The majority of the populace or the Majority of Democrats? I assume Democrats. Details on exactly how the President “obliged” their need for “a focal point for their malevolence”, and why his actions, whatever they might have been, were evidence of the notion that he is “no fool”, are, to put it kindly, murky at this point.
I’d want a cite for this part, but it would require some clarification on exactly when the unfounded nature of the ostensible cause for war became undeniable. Assuming Sev is correct, one wishes for an explanation as to how this response was predictable.
“Such resentment as there was” on whose part? Bush’s constituency, I can only surmise. In that light, the rest seems to imply that the only thing they resented was that he bothered conceding to " the the liberal left and to the assembled UN" by giving the nod to the notion that he needed to justify the war on any grounds whatsover. It’s hard to tell at this juncture whether Sevastopol is being facetious or genuinely supportive of such a notion.
This seems to say that starting a war for no particular reason was a positive goal in and of itself, that it was consciously aimed for by the conservatives, and should be seen as some sort of victory of one value system over another. Again, still difficult to tell if this is serious.
Just what “values” are being referred to here, other than the notion that it might not be a good idea for many reasons if the biggest military in the world just started attacking on a whim, are not clear. One really hopes at this point that this is a poor, late-night attempt at satire.
Not having spelled out any particular “deceipt” of the left prior to now, Sev’s full meaning in this last part is baffling at best. The implication seems to be that what the people of the United States really want is for our country to make war at the drop of a hat on anyone whose looks the (Republican) government doesn’t like on a particular day, and that Bush, having done pretty much just that, is thus exemplary in his leadership.
At least, assuming my analysis of the above is accurate with respect to the intent of the post, uncertainty on one point has been banished. Sevastopol, you have got to be joking.
Can’t wait to see who “Official A” is:
Given the timing, it seems “Official A”. leaked before Libby did so “Official A” might end up in deeper hot water.
Gotta be Cheney, right?
So what do you think is in it for Libby to be the Fall Guy? I’m sure it’s not just “the goodness of my heart” that he’s taking the rap.
No, Rove.
Nah, Cheney’s already explicity mentioned, most notably in paragraph #9:
Further, why would the prosecutor want to do that? Listening to the guy right now, I can get a sense of the type of person he is-- a hard assed, no nonsense prosecutor who is nobody’s political bitch. I don’t think he’ll react well to someone (from either party) who trires to make him one.
I dunno. I think it starts to pile up in the minds of the general populus. It might not have had much of a notice at other times, but large segments of those previously behind Bush are primed to think poorly of him now, each for their own reasons. He’s disappointed several elements of his supporters. The religious right felt that the payment for their support was going to be judges who would certainly hew to their line and Roe v Wade would be no more. Others are just annoyed by cronyism resulting in incompetance. Some just tire of Americans dead in Iraq as they begin to feel more of a threat from Nature than from terrorists, staying the course requires a committment, they didn’t want that. They wanted to slug someone and feel better.
As to Sevastopol’s comments … you don’t think that there was a little cognitive dissonance going on? Lots of people, of both parties, rallied round the President waving the flag. Here was a bad guy to beat up, he’s got WMDs! get him! Once you’ve done that, you become real reluctant to admit that it was a mistake, that the reason you went to beat him up was a pack of … untruths. Rather than do that you’ll grab on to any other possible justification for your actions, and any talk that those reasons were not good enough will be met badly. Hence, the time was right to beat up on multilateralism and diplomatic solutions and to sell implied connections with terrorists that had no evidenciary basis. People wanted to believe because they didn’t want to admit they had been wrong. One mistake often begets others. Holes get deeper the more we try to fill them up with bullshit. And if Bush had delivered with judges ready to push the Religious Right’s agenda, they’d be hewing just fine.