Yes it has -- in the world of Tom Flocco. His intelligence sources -- sources unwilling to speak to anyone but him -- insist that Fitzgerald has already filed indictments against Bush and Cheney.
"Bush then ordered Gonzalez to fire Fitzgerald and have the indictments quashed and sealed."
Not only that: "It is open to conjecture whether Bush could be arrested in California before even returning to Washington, given the criminal nature of the indictments."
What an exciting world Tom lives in!
More seriously, we wouldn't be getting these bursts of disinformation (see the "Powell-and-Cheney-on-Air-Force-One" tale below) unless something serious were about to happen.
5 comments:
An exciting world indeed. Regardless of Flocco's flights of intrigue, has anyone ever adequately investigated the story of the bomb scare in the Chicago subway which ran under or close to Fitzgeralds base of operations? It allegedly happened in mid-July, shortly after the London bombings. I have a Chicago friend who remembers the subway being closed then because of some kind of scare. I know this is a few months old, but just wondering if this story (which I belive Flocco reported on) was ever followed up on.
Well Flocco—true or not—does provide a form of comic relief.
On another tack...it’s all well and good that the Fitzgerald grand jury will indict deserving W junta persons. But I also believe—see C. Floyd's argument in this week’s Moscow Times— they'll escape with the proverbial ‘slap on the hands’, er, executive pardon is the correct term I believe.
And recall the case Nixon/Watergate. What happened only a few years later. Reagan & Thatcher, neo-liberalism full-tilt boogie spending the old Evil Empire S.U. into Jeffery Sachs-land (another bust-out?), then burying the ‘New Deal’...and 20 years later the installation of the overt junta ruling clique.
I'm reminded of the adage: careful what you wish for as you may get it. Nonetheless, yours and many others hard work is appreciated. Carry on!
Old Europe view
Uh...the president cannot be indicted, so that decreases the credibility of this post somewhat.
Not THIS again. This has happened before...
It's not a question of the credibility of MY post. I simply provided a precis of Flocco said. And I thought...I THOUGHT I had provided a sufficiently broad hint to the reader that I found his info difficult to accept.
So why did I mention the matter at all? 1. I thought it was amusing. 2. I suspect that the presence of disinformation indicates that something genuinely serious is on the verge of being uncovered.
How often is this going to happen? If I write "Dan Schman says that cows can fly. Isn't Dan silly?" -- will there always be a reader out there who accuses ME of believing that cows can fly?
Dude, lighten up! I wasn't picking on you, when did you become so thin-skinned? I wasn't trying to discredit your post, only pointing out a MAJOR error in the story you linked to -- what's wrong with that? Maybe you should switch to decaf. :^> (That's a smiley-face, indicating a joke, okay?)
Post a Comment