Buchanan is usually off in way right field, but his observations re the Plame case may have some merit, esp. about where this might be headed. Do you agree with his observations?
It would be interesting (to say the least) if Fitzgerald morphs this invetigation into looking at why we (really) went to war in Iraq.
But, what reason do we have to believe that Fitzgerald has such a broad anti-war and/or anti-Administration agenda? (I don’t really know much about him.)
Fitzgerald has a tiger by the tail. He has to win big or the Republican establishment will eat him alive. His entire career is on the line with this case.
I don’t think this is interesting as much as it is another sign that the Rev Pat is sliding further into dementia. He takes what is an investigation into the publishing the name of a CIA agent (a Federal offense) and links it to Israel, Niger, Alger Hiss, and Franklin Roosevelt (surprised Hillary Clinton isn’t in this one.) In his mind (from what I read), it’s all one-big anti-Republican conspiracy.
And what is the reasoning for calling McNulty and Fitzgerald “Irish”? My grandparents were Irish, I’m American.
Perhaps he perceives it’s a Popish Plot.
Given that Ol’ Paddy is both Irish and a fierce Catholic, methinks probably not. 
Sua
Sean Factotum, I think you’re reading the article the wrong way. Buchanan isn’t looking for a giant anti-Republican conspiracy. He is very much not a Bushite dittohead. I may find him and his politics generally repulsive, but he’s no Administration rubberstamp. I believe he disagrees with the Iraq War and, IIRC, he has since the beginning.
And Buchanan is quite proud of his Irish heritage, so I doubt his use of “Irish prosecutors” was meant to be pejorative.
ME defending Buchanan…is it raining fire out there yet?
Pat Buchanan isn’t a Reverend. I think you may have him confused with Pat Robertson. Buchanan can be pretty right-wing, but he’s not calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, or blaming Katrina and 9/11 on Gays and feminists.
I thought Buchanan was a Scottish name. Maybe I’m wrong - Wikipedia says he’s half German, quarter Scotch, quarter Irish - and either way, it’s kind of a goofy comment.
I don’t think Fitzgerald is doing anything nearly that sweeping. He’d be setting himself up for failure anyway.
Why, what do you think they’ll do if he indicts a bunch of major figures? Leave him alone?
Based on the tone of the OP, he thinks it’s a popish plot and that’s a good thing! 
Yep. Pat may be many things, but Neoconservative ain’t one of them. His paleoconservative isolationist roots are strong, and I think he really despises BushCo for their adventurism and big-gubmint spending.
His statements are what you call “wishful thinking”. As others have said above, odd he’d wish for the same sort of thing I would. But I really doubt Fitzgerald is doing anything but being thorough.
Thanks, Larry. You’re absolutely right in that I misread that. I retract everything I said (except the part about the “Irish” comment.)
Well, he misspelled Hains Point, and says the war is going well, so I don’t have much faith in the rest of his article.
Like the blind squirrel that occasionally gets a nut, I think there are some kernels of truth in what Pat says. I’m in the Chris Matthews camp that says this is going to be huge, as he said last night, a category 5.
We of course won’t know until indictments come down. My speculation is that as the investigation progressed, the scope grew. It went from who outed Plame to why they outed her, why they were so upset with her husband, what did Wilson say that was true and what wasn’t, was there indeed something to the notion that the administation deliberately lied to start the war, etc. Every layer of the onion removed revealed another layer. Being thorough, he isn’t stopping until he gets to the core. And that core is going to be a big fish indeed. I rather doubt now that the investigation was limited to the Plame outing, it is going much deeper than that.
Buchanan has never been a friend of the Bush administration. He’s been virulently opposed to the Iraq war from day one. Mostly, I think, this is because he doesn’t like Israel, and views the war as serving Israeli interests more than American interests. He’s also opposed to the Bush Administration’s trade policies–he favors protective tariffs, IIRC–and he feels Bush isn’t doing nearly enough to stem the tide of illegal immigration.
Buchanan hates neo-conservatives and disagrees with them on everything from mid-east policy to trade. His magazine makes interesting, if sometimes alarming, reading. I’m not a big fan of neo-cons generally, but sometimes Buchanan can make me feel sympathetic to them. (Though sometimes I think his criticisms are on the nose.) Ther’s an alarming whiff of anti-semitism in a lot of his writing.
Here’s his magazine:
For an anti-Semite, he certainly carried a disproportionate share of the Jewish vote in Florida in 2000. All the above is true, but it wouldn’t stop him from being correct once in a while as you note.
An onion with a fish at the core? Trippy.
I do think that if Bush knew about this disclosure some time ago, as at least one news story indicated he did, the results of this could be pretty sweeping. I don’t think Bush will be charged with anything, but if he knew about this, I would expect a good number of other people did.
This morning’s paper says Fitzgerald is about to cover his bets by piling on perjury and obstruction of justice, in case the original charge proves tricky to prove. So, it looks more like embarrassing the administration than exposing the lying-into-war thing.
Buchanan represents (and now, by default, pretty much leads) the nativist-isolationist-economic nationalist current in American political thought. You can find antecedents in the American Party or “Know-Nothings” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know-Nothing_movement) before the Civil War (although they were anti-Catholic and anti-Irish, similarities remain). In A Republic, Not an Empire (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895261596/qid=1129914323/sr=8-5/ref=pd_bbs_5/102-7593990-7168950?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), Buchanan even argues the U.S. should have stayed out of WWII, or at least out of the European theater. (Which can only add to the perception of anti-semitism, justified or not.) It’s no coincidence that his America First Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Party_(2002)) is named after the earlier isolationist movements that tried to keep the U.S. out of the League of Nations and, later, out of WWII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First).
Har-har-har-de-har-ARRGGHH! :mad:
I remember after the 2000 election, seeing some cynical/despairing bumper stickers on the road: “Jews for Buchanan!”