Thursday, October 13, 2005

Sometimes I get it wrong

For those few people hanging on my every word when I make predictions about future events based upon my deductions of past events, you fools! :) Sometimes I get it wrong. I don't have a crystal ball. I'm just taking known facts and using logic to make deductions. Sometimes I get my facts wrong. Sometimes my logic is wrong. And sometimes my deductions are wrong because I don't have all the facts.

As an example, many moons ago I had an article published by Democratic Underground in which I predicted that Ashcroft recusing himself from the Plame case meant that there would be no indictments at all. And now I'm predicting that Fitzgerald is likely to indict Cheney and/or Bush. Obviously I was wrong on at least one of those predictions.

In my defense, in the Democratic Underground article I assumed (but did not explicitly state that assumption) that the Bush Family Evil Empire would maintain its chokehold on all legal processes. At the time it seemed impossible that they would lose their grip and that cracks would appear in the fa├žade. No matter how honest and persistent Fitzgerald was, he wouldn't be able to get anything they didn't want him to have.

So you can laugh at me, here's a rough outline of what I wrote back then:

Ashcroft was deeply unpopular and mocked. He lost a senate re-election race to a dead man! Whatever his plans for the future, he needed something to make him look good.

The Bush administration were going to out the real culprit (fat chance); or they were going to put up some sacrificial minion; or nobody would ever be indicted. I tried to predict which of those three options was most likely given Ashcroft's recusal.

If a real culprit or sacrificial minion were indicted, Ashcroft would benefit by not recusing himself. He could then say "You thought I was partisan and incapable of acting objectively but we have indicted the responsible party. Now anoint me with some more Crisco and bow down before me."

If the plan was that nobody would be indicted then Ashcroft would have to protect himself by recusing himself. He could then say "We couldn't find the culprit but you can't blame me for that because I recused myself."

Therefore Ashcroft's refusal indicated there would be no indictments.

I still stand by that logic. It's just that neither I, nor the Bush Family Evil Empire thought that they'd lose control. Ashcroft's recusal was because the Busheviks intended that there would be no indictments. But they, like I, cannot predict the future perfectly. They, like I, thought they had complete control.

There are times when I am very happy that my deductions turn out to be wrong. OK, I'm counting my burning chickens before they cross the bridge here, but I think that Fitzgerald will be the death of the fascist regime that has taken over the US.


Post a Comment

<< Home