Reply #83: I would defer to H20 Man's judgment (and crystal ball) on anything to do with

[Peace Patriot]

this case. And there are many things that mitigate against any move against Fitzgerald--among them, the broad sweep of the powers that were conferred on him, the fact that Gonzales himself is guilty of obstruction (when he was WH counsel, he gave the perps extra time for shredding and making up cover stories--gave them a 12 hour heads up--I'm thinking this may be the Sealed vs. Sealed indictment, Fitz v. Gonzales), and the magnitude of the Bush Junta's crimes (compared to Nixon) as well as the magnitude of opposition to the Bush/Cheney's war(s), including Bush's own father, with 74% of the American people absolutely disgusted with his son. All of this (and more) tells us that, if they touch Fitzgerald, they are seriously risking having nice, profitable old ages, ensconced in luxury in Paraguay, or wherever they think they can hide.

However, a couple of things worry me. The other day Zbigniew Brzezinski as much as said that the Bush Junta is capable of manufacturing a terrorist incident on our own soil. He's a way-way insider. Totally startling testimony to Senate committee. Why would he imply such a thing IN PUBLIC? Then there are Putin's statements, basically US/Bush a rogue state threatening world peace. People like this DO NOT make statements like this, if things are going well behind the scenes in the US and world establishments. Things are NOT going well, re the Bush Junta and its rogue plan to destroy Iran.

So-o-o, IN A CONTEXT of a Bush/Cheney order to bomb or nuke Iran, and perhaps an attempt at martial law here, I would most definitely expect that Patrick Fitzgerald would be the first to be axed. And a lot of US military brass as well (dissenters on an attack on Iran). Bush/Cheney are desperate, isolated men. Who knows what they would do?

Second, Fred Thompson's participation in this set-up (if that's what it is). He was the Republican side's attorney in the Senate Watergate Hearings, if y'all will recall. So, despite his RW associations since then, he has some weight in saying that a prosecutor is out of control, and weight in Repug circles as a straight-shooter. He may be a very crooked shooter now, but some may go along with him, thinking of who he was.

Thirdly, there is a psychological component to Cheney/Rumsfeld and associated NeoCons re: UNDOING all the progressive leftist things that happened in the 1960s/early 1970s, including Americans' disgust for war because of Vietnam, and Nixon's downfall (which was both materially and emotionally related to his continuance of the Vietnam war--one of the burglars' jobs was to get dirt on Pentagon whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, and their main job--so far as we know--was to plant bugs in the DNC's office during the campaign of a major antiwar Presidential candidate, Geo. McGovern). The fascists don't just want to pursue their own program--they want to UNDO the damage to the cause of war profiteers, corporate rulers and the super-rich, that was done by the social, civil rights and antiwar movements of the '60s.

They are replaying those events, in their minds--one of them being the "Saturday Night Massacre." They want to make it come out DIFFERENTLY. "This time, 'we' win!" is how they're thinking.

Their ability to start a completely unjust, illegal heinous war on Iraq, with 56% of the American people opposed to it (Feb. '03), and then to manufacture an endorsement of that terrible act, via their rightwing Bushite buds at Diebold and ES&S, a year later, was the REVERSE of what happened in the '60s, when the country, at first asleep on Vietnam, eventually came to be revolted by it, and tossed out two presidents in a row--LBJ, then Nixon--because of it.

I therefore think they might try a "Saturday Night Massacre" that saves, rather than destroys, a rightwing president, because they NEED to do it--they want that replay--not based on a sober assessment of its potential impacts, but rather on a hubristic, emotion-driven need to replay the drama and have it come out in their favor. And if you think about the utter disaster in Iraq, it, too, has that irrational, emotion-driven, ego-driven component, aside from all other motives--greed, oil. A replay of Vietnam. "This time, 'we' win!"

And, frankly, I don't know what would happen, if they were nuking Iran and Fitzgerald at the same time. This could be one of the reasons they are replacing US attorneys, and moving to put Bush Politburo operatives in charge of every US government agency--and all their other moves to consolidate all power in the White House (powers of suspension of habeas corpus, indefinite detention, executive "signing statements," spying, well-funded police state mechanisms of every kind, secret use of billions of dollars (no accountability), and so on and so forth). The Democratic Congress' lapdog attitude to all these developments is extremely worrisome. We are well on our way to being the "boiled frogs" of a fascist coup.

If you assess this situation RATIONALLY--in the belief that the rule of law will prevail, and that there are sufficient SANE forces at work, both visible and behind the scenes--you might think that a 2nd "Saturday Night Massacre" is impossible. But the premise of that belief doesn't take into account how irrational Bush and Cheney may be, and what they MIGHT do, to play out their inner dramas, and/or to save their own skins.

I'm not saying they would succeed. They haven't in Iraq (--except for boffo war profiteering). And they haven't at home either--74% of the American people immune to their propaganda! I'm just saying they may well play out their fantasies of nuking Vietnam into submission, and drawing and quartering anti-Nixon leftists and peaceniks on the home front--and could do quite a bit more harm--way more harm--before anyone stops them, including dismantling our country's legal system starting with Fitzgerald.