However special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald concludes his CIA leak probe, it will leave somebody grumbling about these probes’ cost and prosecutors’ lack of accountability, etc. But unlike Ken Starr and most of his predecessors, Fitzgerald at least knows how to squeeze the most out of a buck: The first 15 months of his investigation cost $723,000, according to the Government Accountability Office. Compare that with the more than $3 million that independent counsel David M. Barrett spent during the same period. Didn’t know there still was an independent counsel? There is. Barrett has spent 10 years and $21 million probing former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros — never mind that Cisneros pleaded guilty six years ago to lying to the FBI, paid a $10,000 fine and won a pardon from President Clinton. No wonder members of Congress are trying to yank Barrett’s funding.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
6 Comments
This is where R’s are different than D’s. There has been no character assasination of Fitzgerald (unlike Starr), no complaints about the cost (unlike Clinton’s defenders), no whining by the president (unlike Bubba).
Barrett is on the pork barrel express and he has a lot of “investigative family” to feed. Besides,what else would he do for a living? Special prosecutors should be given a time limit to investigate. They already have nearly unlimited power.
It’s perfectly obvious what happened. Bush and Cheney wanted a war with Iraq for its huge oil reserves and to protect Israel.
They sold it as a “preemptive strike” to stop a WMD attack. The CIA said there was no WMD’s, so Bush Cheney fabricated the evidence.
When in fact no WMD’s were found (as predicted by the CIA), Bush Cheney BLAMED BAD INTELLIGENCE FROM THE CIA.
Of course! the responsibility party, you know . . .
Fitzgerald is going to blow the cover off the whole can of lies.
Chickens, prepare to roost.
Galahad,As much as I’d like to think that, if Bush and Cheney had planned it that way from the outset, don’t you think we’d have “found” those WMD’s (with the Made in USA stamp filed off) long before now? I think Bush was so mad at Saddam (and envious of all that oil) that he just couldn’t believe that he didn’t have them. After all, his advisors told him….! We need a closer look at those advisors and their motives, as well as the common sense of the guy that chose them.
Actually, Jed, a lot of people have been wondering the same thing–why didn’t the Liar-in-Chief just plant the WMD’s?
Apparently, it was tried and foiled more than once. Will try to find the links.
Saddam was acting like he had WMDs because he lives in an unfriendly neighborhood and he did not have a reputation for being nice to his neighbors (notably, Iran). Other speculation was the “armed” posturing was meant to impress his own people.
Another reason we invaded Iraq was that, even though we claim otherwise, we negoiate with terrorists (usually thru 3rd parties). Osama’s big gripe was that U.S. troops were stationed in the land of the two holy mosques, i.e. Saudi Arabia. The U.S. started drawing down our military presence after 9/11 (no doubt, showing Osama how undeterred the U.S. was by terrorist attacks). We did not think we could leave our oil interests in Saudi Arabia vulnerable to aggression by the one really bad guy in the neighborhood, viz. Saddam – Hence, the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam.