Bill Kristol: While House Indictments Coming

Newsmax.xom ^ | Sunday, Oct. 9, 2005 9:28 p.m. EDT | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[huck von finn]

Is Krystol smoking something?

[Huck]

2nd terms sometimes don't even seem worth the effort.

[cynicom]

Most likely not.

[Revolting cat!]

Quick, quick, attack "barking moonbat" "elitist" "snob" Kristol!

[msnimje]

I think Scooter is in trouble.

[woofie]

Kristol ball is cloudy

[RobFromGa]

Kristol is now showing his true colors, the guy is a raving lunatic.

[eyespysomething]

I think Scooter's going to take the heat on this one.

[Black Tooth]

Best have the title corrected.

[huck von finn]

Are we the only two who think this is weird?

[MizSterious]

What the....???!!

[alancarp]

If he's not smoking something, then we may all be thanking the President for nominating Harriet Miers. It's hard to go to war for a nominee when your bankroll of political capital has a lien on it.

And if this all comes to pass, there goes the rest of the agenda for the next 2 years since such things would take that long to play out. *sigh* -- exactly what the D-Rats want.

[Vision]

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol predicted on Sunday that there will be at least one and perhaps several indictments of "senior [Bush] administration officials" by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the outing of CIA employee Valerie Plame.

Are they they editors of Vanity Fair?

[cynicom]

I was surprised that Bush people were giving info to NYT reporters and such.

[Kay]

Kristol is almost always a puddle-glum! If I were a betting person, I would bet that he's wrong.

[Annie5622]

He's just ticked off at the Whitehouse over Meiers, so he's stirring up trouble for them. That's my opinion, anyway.

[Neets]

Ahem.

[ConservativeMan55]

bttt

[Souled_Out]

"FNS co-panelist Brit Hume noted, however, that at least some of the speculation that top Bush adviser Karl Rove may be indicted has been based on false reports in the press."

---

Kristol just seems a little to happy and eager to report bad news. As Brit indicates it may all be based upon lies.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Nobody will remember if he is wrong. If he is right, he gets a bump in pay and his own TV show on MSNBC as the latest Bush-basher.

IN the meantime, as Hume notes, the "news" that the prosecuter "withdrew" the promise of no prosecution was false, as the prosecuter never gave that promise. Not only was it untrue, it would be ludicrous that he would EVER have given such assurances to participants such as Rove -- and any journalism student would have known that.

So I have to assume the news reports were DELIBERATELY MISLEADING.

Now, this is all speculation, which I hate -- we will know the truth in a week or two. But given the way people leak stuff, if there was a REAL expectation of trouble, why would the news media make stuff up?