Don't Uncork the Champagne

Yet.


Like chicago dyke says over at Correntewire:

...I’m not one of the champagne drinking crowd. I’d add “yet,” but I’m not convinced I should.

Here are a few names for you: Bush v. Gore. Thomas White. Ken Lay. Ahmed Chalabi. The Anthrax Killer. Katrina Leung. Bill Frist. “Bugman” DeLay. If I knew how to get to Findlaw or Nexis/Lexis, I’d make that list longer. Much, much longer...

Fitz seems like a good guy, and from what I understand, he’s taken on Big Dogs in the past and won. The Mob. The other mob. Various gov’t officials. He’s a republican. People talk about him like he’s an Untouchable. All I know is that he’s no Ken Starr, and has been pretty good controlling leaks and keeping all of us guessing.

But the facts are bleak to me. Do you expect a Republican-controlled Congress to call for impeachment? I don’t. Do you expect the ~22 Dems voting for Roberts to step up with the noo-kwoo-lar option if this proves to touch Bush and Cheney directly? I don’t. Do you expect CNN and the NYT to offer daily, in-depth, factually based coverage of this in ways most time-pressed Americans can understand? Again, me- not so much. Do you think that this administration will waver from its pattern of obfuscation, denial, and subject changing, and focus on responding to these (as yet only speculative) indictments honestly? Hahahahahahaha…. Did I mention Roberts, Bush v. Gore and expensive lawyers yet?

Anyway, this isn’t a TV show. Jack isn’t going to swoop in like a hawk and grab a fat, quivering mass of obviously guilty prey that Lenny has just broken in the LT’s conference room. More importantly, this case represents a set of threads that, if pulled firmly, would unravel practically the entire empowered Federal gov’t. There’s hardly a Republican in DC today who isn’t somehow connected to this scandal and cover-up.

Dems are included in the list of lying, guilty parties...

Plame’s outing may be have been against the reality-based Intel community. Recall that Poppy, ex-CIA head under Ford himself, represents one big faction of the Company. The Company itself while uniform at the bottom line (Power, Money, and Hegemony) differs in the world vision of it’s faction members.

Call one faction the Dominionists. Call another the Economists. For convenience, realizing these are overlapping oversimplifications and hence mislabels.

The Economists realize they live in a dynamic world. Soros, a founding member of the Carlyle Group, represents this. Their underlying philosophy is that given a large degree of individual freedom, the average person will produce and consume enough, with the proper guidance by the Company, to enrich everyone, including the individual.

Call their philosophy: “A place for every man”.

The Dominionists don’t like that dynamic world unless they own it. They are willing to use religion, fascism, whatever it takes to ensure that everyone is in their place. With the Company on top.

The Empire’s functioning credo was summarized by Herbert, of course:

“A place for every man, and every man in his place”.

What of the Fitzgerald findings?

I submit that if Cheneyburton is to be brought down, it will only be because the Economists check the Dominionists in the Company.

Any change in the system, when change does occur, will be superficial, and will be to allow for a more profitable business structure for the Company.