...between the Pentagon and the CIA that Cheney and Rumsfeld started.
I have my educated guesses--but that's all they are, educated guesses. I think Bush Sr. intervened with his "Iraq Study Group" as his front. His primary purposes were to, a) stop Cheney-Rumsfeld from nuking Iran (bad for business), and b) to prevent CIA retaliation against Bush Jr. for the outings of CIA agents and the entire CIA WMD counter-proliferation project around the world (the work of Cheney and Rumsfeld). Bush Sr.'s ISG--of which Leon Panetta was a member (and is "Old CIA," in my opinion)--put together his "old CIA" group, current military brass (who opposed nuking Iran) and, likely, other political and transglobal corporate powers, and put a "Deal" to Cheney and Rumsfeld, as follows (circa 2006): Cheney/Rumsfeld would NOT nuke Iran; Rumsfeld would resign and the whole gang would agree to go quietly when the time came (I think they were contemplating martial law here, along with nuking Iran); the CIA would back off (they were going to bring these jerks down, with the "non compos mentes" Bush Jr. as collateral damage) and the CIA (with Leon Panetta as Director) would ensure no impeachment, no investigation, and no prosecution of Bush Junta principles for their many, many crimes, at that time and in future administrations.
Thus, Nancy Pelosi was informed that "impeachment" was "off the table" (WHAT "table," Nancy?) and, in turn, informed us. (Candidate) Barack Obama agreed to the "Deal," agreed to appointing Bush Sr. pal Leon Panetta as CIA Director to, among other things, monitor "the Deal," and, after Obama was permitted to be elected, informed us that "we need to look forward not backward" on the crimes of the rich and powerful. (They teach that at Harvard Law School.) Panetta was also tasked with ending the war between the Pentagon and the CIA, which he is now doing (and had the additional task--not unimportant--of wiping Junior's trail clean in other places, for instance, in Colombia, where there is considerable "tip of the iceberg" evidence of Bush Junta criminal activity and collusion with Colombia's 'mafioso' president, Alvaro Uribe).
And IF all of this is true--or more or less true--then consider the position of Patrick Fitzgerald in having this goddamn colossal mess dumped in his lap. What he SAID about it was, a) that his investigation had been obstructed (by Libby) and he therefore couldn't penetrate the conspiracy to out CIA agent and project head Valerie Plame, b) that there was "a cloud over the vice president's office," and c) that THAT (involvement of the vice president) was a "political matter" (implication that Congress must act with impeachment proceedings--he, a lowly prosecutor, couldn't bring an (allegedly) elected top executive official down).
So, imagine, given this scenario, what this powerful group--which ousted Rumsfeld, called off the nuking of Iran and curtailed Cheney in the final two years of Junior's term--would have said to Fitzgerald. Something like this: "Problem solved. Go away!"
When the Bush Cartel has your number, you don't, it seems to me, have a lot of choices. You can, of course, crucify yourself by exposing these powermongers or whatever, or you can "go away" as ordered. Personally, I have some sympathy for anyone in that position. And I think that a lot of people, in that or a similar position, choose to nurture what little power they have, and, if they are good people, to do what little good they can do, within their limits. I don't think it's always lack of courage, or love of comfort, or other venality. For some I think it's just realism and a judgement about the greater good. I have the feeling that this was the case with Fitzgerald--that he did not easily give up the investigation but, rather, faced the reality that it had been taken out of his hands. (That may have been how he saw it.) But, again, it's just a feeling.
I simply can't make a judgement of Fitzgerald as a Supreme Court Justice, based on feelings and on so many guesses and unknowns. I think that something like the above is what really happened but I'm not sure. Too much is hidden. My kneejerk reaction to a prosecutor being named to the court is very negative. He is, by profession, part of the police state that our country has become. Maybe he's been as fair and impartial as he can be, in that position, but he's still part of that fascist game. I feel the same way about most lower court judges, these days. I'd rather see a defense attorney or a non-attorney, non-judge appointed--and how about somebody POOR being put on the Supreme Court? Are we to determine "balance" only by race and sex? What about representing the 99% on the Court? Maybe Fitzgerald IS poor (or relatively poor) and COULD represent the interests of the many. Hard to say. Worth thinking about.
And how about "packing the Supreme Court," as the rightwing in FDR's day called it? It was quite legal and constitutional then, and it is now. The Constitution does not specify the number of judges. Surely more are needed now than the traditional nine, and surely the 1% ought to have representation on the court according to their numbers as human beings. (We could add twenty justices and it still wouldn't be representative, but it would be better, if the added justices actually represented the poor.) But before that can ever happen, we have some other work to do--first priority: get rid of the corporate-run, 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines!
Would Patrick Fitzgerald do that? He might. But probably not. In any case, I have always thought that this will be the issue that sparks American Revolution II. It is OUR task, as a people, to get rid of private corporate control of our voting results (and our voting rolls) and to restore our own democracy. No one is going to do it for us. And, clearly, no one leader CAN do it for us. (They don't dare even mention it.)
--------------------------------------------
One sidelight: I was watching this entire drama, as well as possible (given the Corporate Press) while it unfolded, and I DON'T think that Rove was responsible for the war with the CIA (of which the outings were one battle), nor for the specific outings. He was certainly a political operative during those events but--speaking of lack of courage--I don't think he had the balls to take on the CIA. One of the incidents that bears this out is the evident disarray in the Bush White House, circa 2005 (in the background of Katrina), once Fitzgerald's investigation began, with Bush Jr. and Rove pitted against Cheney and Libby, for who would "take the fall" for the outings. I think that one of the causes of Bush Jr.'s very obvious, public ineptness during Katrina was that the White House was splitting down the middle and cracking apart, behind the scenes, over the CIA's furor and Fitzgerald's investigation. I think Fitzgerald was correct on this point--that Rove didn't do it (the actual outings). Cheney/Libby had set Rove up to take the fall. As much as we might despise Rove and wish that he would be investigated, convicted and jailed for his many crimes--including election fraud--if we want to understand these events, we need to try to understand the factions within the Bush Junta and the powerful hidden players, like Bush Sr. (and Leon Panetta).
One other point in defense of my scenario above: I think we need to face reality ourselves, as a people, and recognize that our country is now a police state ruled by powers that have no loyalty to us whatsoever. When something like the Fitzgerald investigation of Cheney occurs, there are powers at work behind the scenes that we have no control over and know little or nothing about. I think that there were, in that case, severe fractures in the Imperial facade, and grave differences among our rulers, and this "war" among our rulers involved the gravest of dangers--in fact, nuclear armageddon (if China or Russia had entered the fray, on Iran's side). I can be glad that such a catastrophe was avoided and still be alarmed by a number of things, including who put Cheney and Rumsfeld in charge in the first place, and the utter lack of justice represented by "the Deal" that immunized them for their many crimes. I think it's pretty obvious that some such "Deal" was made. THAT is very worrisome, as is the decision to loot us of trillions and trillions of dollars in the bankster bailout, on their way out the door.
= new reply since forum marked as read
