I thought of the Equatorial Guinea as soon as I heard this. The plane used in that coup attempt was almost certianly one of the CIA black ops planes. But if BushCo were going to launch a coup (again) they would probably try to hide their tracks better than they did with Chavez. Which means they'd need to launder some money. They might even go to their chied launderer, Abramoff/DeLay.
What a tangled web these guys weave.
Posted by emptywheel at October 3, 2005 06:55 AMI, for one, will defend Lady Thatcher to the death.
Vote, um, Labour!
Posted by tony blair at October 3, 2005 07:04 AM"He's lucky he wasn't imprisoned." Before you take out the noose and hang Tom at the ole-hanging tree, you might want to check the charges you are throwing out. The freebies scandal charge hasn’t been filed on Delay by any prosecutor, unless you know something different? The current charge is so flimsy that it doesn’t even pass the giggle test and most likely will be thrown out by the Judge. Sounds like somebody is on a fishing expedition in England (good luck with that). To summarize: So far Tom Delay stands accused (l mean indicted) on exactly one charge of criminal conspiracy. All the other bloviating doesn’t really mean a thing legally. Of course I never served in combat or have your keen mind for the law, so my rantings may mean nothing to you.
Posted by Cyber Sarge at October 3, 2005 08:12 AMCome on now, Sarge! All too often in countries outside of the US, the rule of law is determined by how long it takes to invoke summary justice. But then, since you aren't seeing summary justice happening in the actions of the government of your own land, why should you discern it anywhere else?
Posted by pessimist at October 3, 2005 08:43 AMOf course I never served in combat or have your keen mind for the law, so my rantings may mean nothing to you.
Just so, and your point is...?
(btw, I posted a reply to your whining on the Al Jazeera thread; did you miss it, or were you purposely ignoring it?)
Posted by iamcoyote at October 3, 2005 09:36 AMFlimsy's like whitewater? Maybe but that took you guys 60 million to find out.
Posted by Goose1 at October 3, 2005 10:24 AMC.S -- I don't see why you are so bent on denfending DeLay. You must know that he hasn't been punished in any meaningful way for his practices through his manipulation of the ethics committee. Truly, C.S. if someone in your workplace had done similar things to what DeLay has done and you were on the receiving end of his pressure, would you really buckle under and let him screw you and perhaps the institution you work for? Or would you force him to play by the rules -- instead of changing them at will? Maybe I've gotten the wrong impression of you. Don't you see that to DeLay, you (or me or most anyone else) are of little consequence?
DeLay doesn't even really care enough about his "new" district to know what their views are. He didn't adapt at all to having new people in his district -- just kept it business as usual -- and in 2004 lost 40% of the vote to a political novice.
It's almost embarrassing to watch you defend him.
I'm going to paste this same comment on the more recent post about the second indictment -- in hopes that you will see it in one place or the other.
Posted by dorita at October 3, 2005 09:43 PM