Friday, November 18, 2005

FREEPER CALLS FOR FITZGERALD SHOOTING

The not-so-nice types at Free Republic are acting out again. One particular poster, Bloody Sam Roberts, on Friday posted an angry response to news that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is serving up info to a new grand jury:
Is this guy on CRACK?!

He's wasted huge amounts of OUR money on a frackin' witch hunt and now he wants round two?!
And then a blank white line. Highlighted, it reads:
Shoot him. Shoot him now. He's nothing but a DNC butt boy.
No kidding. The entire thread can be read by clicking here. Read it and weep. The wicked are close to victory.

6 comments:

DocLarry said...

One wonders if Bloody Sam Roberts suggested shooting Ken Starr for wasting "huge amounts of OUR money on a frackin' witch hunt" of the Clenis?

Washington Post on October 23rd (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102301028_2.html):
"In its first 15 months, the (Fitzgerald) investigation cost $723,000, according to the Government Accountability Office."

CNN on Feb. 1, 1999 (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/01/starr.costs/):
"The figures show that Starr's office, through the end of November 1998, had spent $40,835,000. That includes $27,749,000 in direct expenses from independent counsel appropriations and $13,086,000 in unreimbursed expenses incurred by other government agencies.

"Those figures do not include costs incurred by Starr's predecessor, Robert Fiske, whose office spent about $6 million before Starr was appointed to lead the investigation.

"The GAO's most recent report issued last September showed Starr had spent $33.5 million through March 31st, 1998, after taking over for Fiske in 1994."

So, to be charitable to Starr, he spent about $10 million a year while, again to be charitable to Starr (counting 15 months as a year), Fitzgerald spent $700,000 a year.

Starr found Clenis got a blow job. Fitzgerald seems to have found someone committed treason.

Anonymous said...

Mr Davis and his readers seem to love throwing treason around on this blog.

Treason?

Plame may not have even fit the statutory requirements for being undercover.

Libby has basically been indicted for covering up something that MAY not have been illegal in the first place.

BUT none of what I just typed should be viewed as me justifying anything about anyone shooting Fitzgerald.

Everything I've heard about him seems to indicate he'd find and prosecute wrongding regardless of who did the wrongdoing.

Ron Davis said...

Anon:

Nice job of trying to justify the action of those people who tossed about the name of a CIA employee. Nice job of splitting hairs -- "may not have even fit the statutory requirements" -- and wrestling with your own common sense, just to excuse what the Bush Administration did.

And let's get it right, Anon. This blog doesn't use the word "treason" to describe what Bush & Co. have done. The word is "traitor," meaning someone who has stopped being loyal to their country. I think it's a fine and accurate definition of many members of the Bush Administration. They're traitors.

Anonymous said...

How did you justify the treasonous ( I would have classifeied the Clinton administration as traitor in that case ) actions of the Clinton administration when he allowed the sale of Guided Missle technology to Chinese interests( A tangent, I know)?

I also don't beleive that I tried to justify anything... I was just pointing out the the original "crime" may not have been a crime. But, a cover up involving lying to a grand jury would be a crime ... ( Clinton anyone?)

Is that a justification? Not in my neck of the woods, of course I'm not a rabid liberal ( or rabid conservative for that matter).

A Clinton supporter like you should be able to accept that. What is the meaning of "is"?

Ron Davis said...

Ah, Anon, you didn't let me down with your typical "blame Bill" excuse. When the heat hits the Bush Administration, its supporters switch the subject to Clinton. You can claim you didn't try to "justify anything," but your first response belies that stance. Thanks for playing.

Anonymous said...

Where in that first post do I JUSTIFY what is being investigated.

I MERELY pointed out that the "crime" MAY NOT have been the crime.

I can read. Apparently you allow your hatred for the Bush administration to cloud even the most basic of reasoning functions.

As for Clinton, I wasn't blaming him for everything, I was just pointing out obvious traitourous ( I know I can't spell, but is that even a word? ) actions, and other criminal activity in regards to federal grand jury investigations.

There is a similarity.

The original "crime" may not have been a crime. But the COVER UP certainly falls into that category.

Something I pointed out in my original post.

Thanks for playing.