Did you catch any of Meet the Press yesterday? Tim Russert was interviewing, among others, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and New York Senator Charles Schumer when Hutchison let slip that she doesn't want to see any petty or overly technical charges brought against anybody in the White House this week when Patrick Fitzgerald will (probably) hand up his indictments in the Plame Unpleasantness.
[...] I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury.Hoo boy. I suspect that a few "neocons" are going to be in trouble here in the next few days, but surely they won't want to turn to Hutchison for any legal ---or political--- advice.
But, then, on the subject of the War for Iraq, Schumer made a very interesting reply to Russert that doesn't seem compatible with the gibberish his party has made its name on lately. To the question of whether he regretted his vote in favor of the War for Iraq, Schumer said:
Well, no, Tim, because my vote was seen and I still see it as a need to say we must fight a strong and active war on terror.Hmmm. Did Schumer mean to go off-script like that? Isn't the party line from both Democrats and their Big Media propagandists that the War for Iraq is an unrelated and unnecessary distraction from the real "war on terror"? Isn't it dangerous to confuse the anti-war dhimmis with the view that Iraq and terrorism are directly linked?
Oh, well. I'm sure Hutchison and Schumer will be revising and extending their remarks today.