It's about time that the folks in power realize that there are repurcussions for their arrogant overreaching these past 5 years. I dare say that if the repurcussions hadn't started now, Bush's second term could have evolved into an overreach free-for-all.

Fitzgerald is the Bush Administration's anti-hubris.

Thuggishness and incompetence are not mutually exclusive.

Actually, they're mutually dependent.

You see, Jones, the Company is always right. Anyone who points out the Company is wrong is Wrong. You know what happens to people who are Wrong, don't you, Jones? We don't need Wrong people in the Company, Jones. We need Right people--people who recognize that the Company is always right.

I'd hate to think you were the wrong sort of people for the Company, Jones. That would be very bad, for the Company--and for you.

So, come back to work--and life, Jones. Out west the aspens will be shaking in their roots--because even the aspens, Jones, know that the Company is Always Right. Don't let the aspens be smarter than you, Jones.

That's all--thank you for coming in to see me with your concerns. Goodbye, Jones. Give my best to Lilly.

You note that Fitzgerald is expected to complete his investigation in two years, whereas it took Ken Starr five years to complete his. The comparison would be more starkly presented, of course, had Judy Miller chosen more than a year ago to recognize the voluntary nature of the selfsame waiver she now cites as having freed her to testify. We are assured that Miller was only able to recognize the truly "voluntary" nature of the waiver after her source called her--at her lawyer's prompting, and with the prosecutor listening in on the call (how uncoerced!)--to insist that he really meant it. We can only assume that it was Miller's defiant decision to obstruct the work of the grand jury by standing on ceremony (and is there anyone at this point who would dare substitute the word "principle"?) that prevented the results of this investigation, including any findings about the government's abuse of power that it may yield, from coming to light much sooner.

Conason raises an excellent point by comparing Kenneth Starr's willingness to leak information with the opacity of Fitzgerald's office. This difference betrays the motives of the pundits who criticize the current inquiry. The fact is that nobody outside of the grand jury knows what indictments it will return. To call Fitzgerald a runaway prosecutor without any information from inside the jury room shows that these "journalists" are simply engaging in advance damage control as they attempt to read the tea leaves by questioning sources close to the witnesses who have already testified.

It is easy enough to predict a perjury or obstruction charge when you compare the reports of Rove's testimony and Libbey's testimony with the reports of Miller's and Cooper's testimonies. However, inside the offices of Fitzgerald and the grand jury is where the actual deliberations are proceeding.

By discounting the credibility of the Special Counsel before any indictments are returned, without even any sources inside the Special Counsel's office, these pundits are playing the worst kind of spin game. They are attacking the credibility of Fitzgerald just in case any indictments are returned.

What if Prosecutor Fitzgerald concludes his investigation with no report and no indictments?

Since Fitzgerald been cast as incorruptible and unerringly just by nearly everyone on the left in America, such an anticlimax would appear to vindicate all that is Bush-ish, and would be a calamity for dissent, perhaps also touching off another avalanche of hubristic high crimes in the Administration. Mr. Fitzgerald is not obliged to utter a single word, ever, in defense or explanation if that is what he decides to do. We all know how good he is at keeping his mouth shut.

Let's pass over the possibility that he might actually proclaim the vindication of Rove and Co. and call for an end to any further questions.

While we're at it, whether Harriet Miers is confirmed or not, the reality is that the U.S. will probably have a far-right-wing Supreme Court for a very long time. Either Miers will squeak through, or Bush will find another "brilliant" and implacable fascist like Scalia or Roberts, who will be approved without question.

Even supposing that the religiously pure and now stone conservative Miers at one time displayed "liberal tendencies" that could theoretically be reawakened, isn't it probable that once out of her current job, she would transfer her neurotic loyalty from Bush to the coldly seductive Roberts or the grimly authoritarian Scalia? We can only hope that both of them would be disgusted by her fawning, driving her in tears into the arms of Justice Stevens.

Nowhere on what passes for the left have I seen any commentary that acknowledges the near-certainty of the coming right-wing Court or suggests a strategy for dealing with it. And yet we must deal with this, as we must with errors of justice in favor of the oligarchs, which will inevitably come even if Fitzgerald does indict.

Apparently, Tierney, Weisberg and others have a narrow view of not telling the truth under oath. It appears to be that if a high administrative official believes no underlying crime was committed that it is not then a crime to be less than candid or even dishonest about their participation in the non crime.

What if Prosecutor Fitzgerald concludes his investigation with no report and no indictments?

Since Fitzgerald has been cast as incorruptible and unerringly just by nearly everyone on the left in America, such an anticlimax would appear to vindicate all that is Bush-ish, and would be a calamity for dissent, perhaps also touching off another avalanche of hubristic high crimes in the Administration. Mr. Fitzgerald is not obliged to utter a single word, ever, in defense or explanation. We all know how good he is at keeping his mouth shut.

Let's pass over the possibility that he might actually proclaim the vindication of Rove and Co. and call for an end to any further questions.

While we're at it, whether Harriet Miers is confirmed or not, the reality is that the U.S. will probably have a far-right-wing Supreme Court for a very long time. Either Miers will squeak through, or Bush will find another "brilliant" and implacable fascist like Scalia or Roberts, who will be approved without question.

Even supposing that the religiously pure and now stone conservative Miers at one time displayed "liberal tendencies" that could theoretically be reawakened, isn't it probable that once out of her current job, she would transfer her neurotic loyalty from Bush to the coldly seductive Roberts or the grimly authoritarian Scalia? We can only hope that both of them would be disgusted by her fawning, driving her in tears into the arms of Justice Stevens.

Nowhere on what passes for the left have I seen any commentary that acknowledges the near-certainty of the coming right-wing Court or suggests a strategy for dealing with it. And yet we must deal with this, as we must with errors of justice in favor of the oligarchs, which will inevitably come even if Fitzgerald does indict.