Comments: Circling The Wagons, Cheney Pokes Fitzgerald In The Eye

I'd say no control over Cheney's office is closer to the truth, but who knows...maybe aWol really doesn't give a shit and he's actually pissed off about all these problems but not because he wants to change things but because he's been caught.

I suspect the Aito nomination is a big FU to the rest of the country and these guys won't change a thing until they are dragged kicking and screaming out of the WH...hopefully it won't take a military coup for that to happen...

Posted by John B. at October 31, 2005 10:40 AM

Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.

Don Corleone

Posted by logico-philosophicus at October 31, 2005 10:47 AM

I wonder, does a higher level of employment in the executive branch confer some sort of additional legal standing as to your superiors limiting or refusing access to you for interrogation or documents? Is a claim of executive privilege now more applicable to Addington and Hannah due to their new positions? I suspect this isn't so much poking Fitz in the eye as it is a case of keeping your friends close but keeping your enemies closer. Hannah and Addington could easily be tagged as "enemies" to Cheney, at least in the context of the damage they could do should Fitz have further free rein to quiz or use them.

Posted by steve duncan at October 31, 2005 11:03 AM

Cheney's appointments to replace Libby reminds me of how mob crime bosses react when the feds come after them.. "Here's what we think of your damn indictment. Catch me if you can!!"

If I were Fitzgerald, I would really take note of Cheney's overt , bizarre f... you!!

Posted by Tara at October 31, 2005 12:13 PM

"...or else he (Bush) has no control whatsoever with Cheney's office." Is Bush's relationship with Cheney comparable to the New York Times' relationship with Judith Miller?

Posted by Sally Strope at October 31, 2005 12:48 PM

It appears time for an economic revolt against the companies that fund George W Bush and the Republican Party. Go call and email these companies and tell them you have had enough of the actions of the Republican Party and you will not take it anymore.

http://www.hoflink.com/~dbaer/petitions.htm

..

Posted by buckfush at October 31, 2005 02:06 PM

logico-philosophicus beat me to it!

amen

Posted by Keith at October 31, 2005 02:28 PM

How about just solidifying the "executive privilege"
dodge, at least until SCOTUS can rule on what "executive privilege" extends to the VP's office.

Posted by barrisj at October 31, 2005 02:54 PM

please stop buckfush spam. I've never heard of a more ineffective boycott.

Posted by ann at October 31, 2005 03:15 PM

Seems to me that Cheney has few friends left. He may have to rely on the devils he knows because nobody else is willing.
And don't forget the B/C WH is reputed to be an abusive workplace, and quite anti-social.

Posted by pogo at October 31, 2005 03:15 PM

"please stop buckfush spam. I've never heard of a more ineffective boycott."

Ann, good idea, but I don't need to see it on ever post.

Posted by Judith at October 31, 2005 03:45 PM

Ann, what's wrong with boycotting the companies who strongly support republicans?

Or what about the widespread general strike on November 2 to let the government know we are tired of their bullshit.

Are you going to chat some more or are you going to act?

see here:

http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=19

or here:

http://www.worldcantwait.net/

Posted by skeptic at October 31, 2005 04:45 PM
Post a comment
HTML Tags:
<b>Bold</b> = Bold
<i>Italics</i> = Italics
<a href="http://www.url.com/">Linked text</a> = Linked text

Note: comments from signed in commenters will show up right away. If you are not signed in, your comment will not appear until it has been approved.




Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)

In order to post a comment, you must answer the following question.