Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 412







Post#10276 at 10-18-2005 07:22 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
10-18-2005, 07:22 PM #10276
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Re: Escalation?

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
It should be no surprise, but I doubt it will, that a post-9/11 John Zogby found only 25% of Americans wishing that Clinton was still president, in a direct head to head polling match up with Bush.
This sentence makes no sense.

But, as the results of the election last year failed to show, the public mood is certainly much different now, four years later.
Survey USA has some updated polling data on the president, state-by-state.

Here's Ohio.







Post#10277 at 10-18-2005 07:34 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-18-2005, 07:34 PM #10277
Guest

Re: Historical escalation, eh?

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
It should be no surprise, but it deniably will, that John Zogby found only 25% of Americans wishing that Clinton was still president, in a direct head to head post-9/11 polling match up with Bush.
This sentence makes no sense.
Now it does. :wink:

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
But, as the results of the election last year failed to show, the public mood is certainly much different now, four years later.
Survey USA has some updated polling data on the president, state-by-state. Here's Ohio.
As I have previously noted, FDR was the "veto" king of kings. Does this make our former "gray champion" a conservative? True leadership can be a bit tough at times. Bush's low numbers, however, are not historic even by Reagan or, Clintonian do-nothing standards.

But wishful thinking disregards history... even pro-liberal S&H-style history.







Post#10278 at 10-18-2005 07:43 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
10-18-2005, 07:43 PM #10278
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Re: Historical escalation, eh?

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Bush's low numbers, however, are not historic even by Reagan or, Clintonian do-nothing standards.
At the time the House was voting to impeach him, Clinton's approval rating was in the low 70's.







Post#10279 at 10-18-2005 08:22 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-18-2005, 08:22 PM #10279
Guest

Re: Historical escalation, eh?

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Bush's low numbers, however, are not historic even by Reagan or, Clintonian do-nothing standards.
At the time the House was voting to impeach him, Clinton's approval rating was in the low 70's.
Where's your url link this time...? I can't imagine Billy's poll numbers were all that high when he still leading...

... and just before Newt finally ended the Democrat's long forty-year hold on the U.S. House of Representative, in 1994. Gee, will the price of leadership repeat in 2006?







Post#10280 at 10-18-2005 08:32 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
10-18-2005, 08:32 PM #10280
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Re: Historical escalation, eh?

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Bush's low numbers, however, are not historic even by Reagan or, Clintonian do-nothing standards.
At the time the House was voting to impeach him, Clinton's approval rating was in the low 70's.
Where's your url link this time...? I can't imagine Billy's poll numbers were all that high when he still leading...
Sorry about that.

Here's one:

Clinton's Approval Rating Up In Wake of Impeachment







Post#10281 at 10-18-2005 11:03 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
10-18-2005, 11:03 PM #10281
Guest

Re: Historical escalation, eh?

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Bush's low numbers, however, are not historic even by Reagan or, Clintonian do-nothing standards.
At the time the House was voting to impeach him, Clinton's approval rating was in the low 70's.
Where's your url link this time...? I can't imagine Billy's poll numbers were all that high when he still leading... and just before Newt finally ended the Democrat's long forty-year hold on the U.S. House of Representative, in 1994. Gee, will the price of leadership repeat in 2006?
Sorry about that. Here's one: Clinton's Approval Rating Up In Wake of Impeachment
Here's another (earlier) one:
  • 1994: Starts year at 54% in January, but public sours on health care reform plan and job approval slips to 39% by September, with 54% not approving. Republicans sweep to power in Congress in November.

    1995: Starts at 47% in January and stays in the 40s much of the year, but edges back to 53% in December after confrontation with Republicans over government shutdown.

    1996: Approval at 58% to start year, moves to 62% by mid-January, stays in the high 50s and low 60s much of the year, though dipping to 52% in mid-August.

    1997: Rating starts at 58% in January and stays in the high 50s and low 60s all year.

    1998: Approval jumps to 69% after the first news of the Monica Lewinsky investigation. It stays in the 60s throughout the year and spikes to 73% in December after the House votes for impeachment.

If Clinton was truly "leading" the nation, as he was lying to a federal judge and grand jury in 1998, then I think Democrats certainly have a reason to loudly cheer his "Approval jumps" at that time (and would thus eagerly "wish" a return to the "stained blue dress" good old daze).

CNN Link: here







Post#10282 at 10-19-2005 12:41 AM by Pink Splice [at St. Louis MO (They Built An Entire Country Around Us) joined Apr 2005 #posts 5,439]
---
10-19-2005, 12:41 AM #10282
Join Date
Apr 2005
Location
St. Louis MO (They Built An Entire Country Around Us)
Posts
5,439

Re: Escalation?

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
It should be no surprise, but I doubt it will, that a post-9/11 John Zogby found only 25% of Americans wishing that Clinton was still president, in a direct head to head polling match up with Bush.
This sentence makes no sense.

But, as the results of the election last year failed to show, the public mood is certainly much different now, four years later.
Survey USA has some updated polling data on the president, state-by-state.

Here's Ohio.

Here's Texas:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Poll...c-75de38f33048

The hurricanes did the trick.







Post#10283 at 10-19-2005 01:05 AM by albatross '82 [at Portland, OR joined Sep 2005 #posts 248]
---
10-19-2005, 01:05 AM #10283
Join Date
Sep 2005
Location
Portland, OR
Posts
248

Re: Escalation, eh?

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by albatross '82
Yeah, I've heard that Clinton and Gore both have read S&H. I think, judging by their post-2000 actions, that they would both love to be the Grey Champion. I actually remember Clinton saying around 2002 or so that he wished that 9/11 happened on his watch. He would have loved the challenge.
Clinton "wished that 9/11 happened on his watch"? Judging by his "nuanced" approach to the disaster in Mogadishu, the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, the 1996 Khobar Tower attack, and the later bin Laden-led attacks on the U.S. Embassy (1998) and the U.S.S Cole (2000), I find this more than just a bit curious... not to mention sickly in a narcissistic way.

It should be no surprise, but it deniably will, that John Zogby found only 25% of Americans wishing that Clinton was still president, in a direct head to head post-9/11 polling match up with Bush.

But, as the results of the election last year failed to show, the public mood is certainly much different now, four years later.
Yes, I find it a bit strange too. I don't see Clinton as a real crisis leader. I distinctly remember him saying that though. Would he have treated 9/11 as a criminal act like the 1993 bombings? I'm sure it would have been more of the same from him. For all of Bush's shortcomings, I think he did the right thing in treating it like an act of war.







Post#10284 at 10-19-2005 11:04 AM by scott 63 [at Birmingham joined Sep 2001 #posts 697]
---
10-19-2005, 11:04 AM #10284
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Birmingham
Posts
697

Re: Escalation, eh?

Quote Originally Posted by albatross '82
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by albatross '82
Yeah, I've heard that Clinton and Gore both have read S&H. I think, judging by their post-2000 actions, that they would both love to be the Grey Champion. I actually remember Clinton saying around 2002 or so that he wished that 9/11 happened on his watch. He would have loved the challenge.
Clinton "wished that 9/11 happened on his watch"? Judging by his "nuanced" approach to the disaster in Mogadishu, the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, the 1996 Khobar Tower attack, and the later bin Laden-led attacks on the U.S. Embassy (1998) and the U.S.S Cole (2000), I find this more than just a bit curious... not to mention sickly in a narcissistic way.

It should be no surprise, but it deniably will, that John Zogby found only 25% of Americans wishing that Clinton was still president, in a direct head to head post-9/11 polling match up with Bush.

But, as the results of the election last year failed to show, the public mood is certainly much different now, four years later.
Yes, I find it a bit strange too. I don't see Clinton as a real crisis leader. I distinctly remember him saying that though. Would he have treated 9/11 as a criminal act like the 1993 bombings? I'm sure it would have been more of the same from him. For all of Bush's shortcomings, I think he did the right thing in treating it like an act of war.
Invading Afghanastan certainly put pressure on Al Qaeda, probably disrupted their direct operations. The Taleban themselves were only an enabler, never a direct threat to the US. That said, international terrorists have rarely been able to pull off attacks on US soil before 9/11. I suspect that the current lull in such attacks arises more from US intelligence vigilance than from wholesale military action in Afghanastan. This would have occured after a 9/11-scale attack regardless of the administration. Some will maintain that Bush is uniquely successful in applying military solutions. The Bush-Cheney teams' level of competence does not convince me that they are currently doing a better job than others might have.

Clinton would not have been able to nab Bin Laden or Zawahiri (sp?) in Taleban-controlled territory. But Bush hasn't gotten him on somewhat friendlier terrain, either. Clinton would not have displayed the fierceness that Americans seemed to want on 9/12 but he would probably not be facing a public so disdainful of his leadership in 2005, either. Also, unfortunately for Bush, we have to take his GWOT as a whole and that means factoring in Iraq. The picture gets even murkier from that point on.

Are we safer because we had Bush on 9/11? Not a slam dunk.

Finally, Al Qaeda is not a problem you can just solve with a Marine Expeditionary Force or a few cruise missles. It is a long term challenge that will mean that we will not have reasonble security for a long time, if ever. The Cold War was fought by Presidents of many stripes and so will post-Cold War struggles.
Leave No Child Behind - Teach Evolution.







Post#10285 at 10-19-2005 11:15 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
10-19-2005, 11:15 AM #10285
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Re: Historical escalation, eh?

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Bush's low numbers, however, are not historic even by Reagan or, Clintonian do-nothing standards.
At the time the House was voting to impeach him, Clinton's approval rating was in the low 70's.
Where's your url link this time...? I can't imagine Billy's poll numbers were all that high when he still leading... and just before Newt finally ended the Democrat's long forty-year hold on the U.S. House of Representative, in 1994. Gee, will the price of leadership repeat in 2006?
Sorry about that. Here's one: Clinton's Approval Rating Up In Wake of Impeachment
Here's another (earlier) one:
  • 1994: Starts year at 54% in January, but public sours on health care reform plan and job approval slips to 39% by September, with 54% not approving. Republicans sweep to power in Congress in November.

    1995: Starts at 47% in January and stays in the 40s much of the year, but edges back to 53% in December after confrontation with Republicans over government shutdown.

    1996: Approval at 58% to start year, moves to 62% by mid-January, stays in the high 50s and low 60s much of the year, though dipping to 52% in mid-August.

    1997: Rating starts at 58% in January and stays in the high 50s and low 60s all year.

    1998: Approval jumps to 69% after the first news of the Monica Lewinsky investigation. It stays in the 60s throughout the year and spikes to 73% in December after the House votes for impeachment.

If Clinton was truly "leading" the nation, as he was lying to a federal judge and grand jury in 1998, then I think Democrats certainly have a reason to loudly cheer his "Approval jumps" at that time (and would thus eagerly "wish" a return to the "stained blue dress" good old daze).

CNN Link: here
The point is that Clinton stayed above 50% throughout his second term, even with the Lewinsky scandal.

Bush's numbers in his second term, OTOH, are steadily declining. He's got his base, but moderates and independents are deserting him.







Post#10286 at 10-19-2005 11:20 AM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
10-19-2005, 11:20 AM #10286
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Re: Escalation, eh?

Quote Originally Posted by albatross '82
Yes, I find it a bit strange too. I don't see Clinton as a real crisis leader. I distinctly remember him saying that though. Would he have treated 9/11 as a criminal act like the 1993 bombings? I'm sure it would have been more of the same from him.
We don't know, and we'll never know how Clinton (or Gore) would have responded. However, I would venture to guess that they would not have invaded Iraq.

For all of Bush's shortcomings, I think he did the right thing in treating it like an act of war.
Which he promptly sidelined in favor of going after Saddam Hussein.







Post#10287 at 10-19-2005 01:25 PM by Uzi [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 2,254]
---
10-19-2005, 01:25 PM #10287
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
2,254

- -







Post#10288 at 10-19-2005 02:05 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-19-2005, 02:05 PM #10288
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

False Regeneracy

Quote Originally Posted by Mike Alexander
You approach has a lot of prerequisites. How can one look at a regeneracy until one is sure we are in a 4T?
Quote Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas
In my reading of the text, the Third Turning just limps along until it reaches the point of no return.

So, you may have your Stamp Act (1765), then your Townshend Act (1767), then your quartering of troops (1768), then your Boston Massacre (1770), and then your Tea Act (1772) - which resulted in the burning of the Gaspee in 1772 and the Tea Party in (1773). This led to the first Continental Congress (1774) and the skirmishes at Lexington and Concord (1775).
When are we sure we are in a 4T? Where is the point of no return? Early on, the bulk of the effort goes into restoring the status quo. Later, one does what one has to do to make the problem go away. With 20 20 hindsight, one might spot a moment where commitment to a major effort to achieve new society is made. Lacking 20 20 hindsight, it is harder.

I've been speaking of a 'false regeneracy' after September 11th. Early in a spiral of violence leading to all out conflict, the solutions tend to be small, focused more on restoring the status quo than solving basic problems. While there seems to be a chance that the status quo might be restored, momentum towards a significant transformation might not develop. Small solutions are tried first. Major efforts are seriously considered only after all hope of the status quo is lost.

One might also distinguish between military and political escalation. Pearl Harbor, Lexington Green or September 11th might ramp up the level of violence, but a Declaration of Independence, Emancipation Proclamation or Atlantic Charter say more about the new society to be created from the struggle. In general, the violence comes first, but there is no firm pattern.

While there is considerable escalation in violence occurring, I'm not seeing transforming ideas. While flaws in the current society are fairly obvious, serious attempts at reform aren't yet present. I'd like to think the next set of ideas might seriously address major issues, but no politicians are ready to take radical stands yet, in good part because not many people are ready to listen to radical stands.

September 11th is such a obvious catalyst that it is apt to be remembered as the crisis boundary. This does not mean that the first set of ideas in response to September 11th will be the ideas that form the core of the transformation. Thus, false regeneracy and a phony fourth. Until serious attacks on the underlying causes are proposed -- crony capitalism, lack of leading sectors, intense division of wealth, all leading to ethnic and nationalist unrest -- we'll see more false regeneracy and a longer phony fourth.







Post#10289 at 10-19-2005 02:36 PM by Biddy5637 [at Washington, DC joined Apr 2005 #posts 582]
---
10-19-2005, 02:36 PM #10289
Join Date
Apr 2005
Location
Washington, DC
Posts
582

My understanding of regeneracy was that it required a nadir of sorts to be reached first, and then the regeneracy pulls us through the second half of the 4t.

If anyone else thinks public mood is the strongest indicator of a turning, check out this post from Reynolds at Mighty Middle.







Post#10290 at 10-19-2005 03:14 PM by Uzi [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 2,254]
---
10-19-2005, 03:14 PM #10290
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
2,254

- -







Post#10291 at 10-19-2005 03:37 PM by Opie [at Outside Elysium. Born in the year of the dope, 1973, and the month of the misfit, July. joined Sep 2005 #posts 299]
---
10-19-2005, 03:37 PM #10291
Join Date
Sep 2005
Location
Outside Elysium. Born in the year of the dope, 1973, and the month of the misfit, July.
Posts
299

Well, there's this.

But then there's also this.

Strange days indeed.
The poster formerly known as Jake has left the building.







Post#10292 at 10-19-2005 03:39 PM by scott 63 [at Birmingham joined Sep 2001 #posts 697]
---
10-19-2005, 03:39 PM #10292
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Birmingham
Posts
697

Quote Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas
I think most people have lost a lot of faith in the federal government.
This sounds more squarely 4Tish. Of course the time from catalyst to nadir is not instantaneous.
Leave No Child Behind - Teach Evolution.







Post#10293 at 10-19-2005 06:15 PM by albatross '82 [at Portland, OR joined Sep 2005 #posts 248]
---
10-19-2005, 06:15 PM #10293
Join Date
Sep 2005
Location
Portland, OR
Posts
248

Re: Escalation, eh?

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Quote Originally Posted by albatross '82
Yes, I find it a bit strange too. I don't see Clinton as a real crisis leader. I distinctly remember him saying that though. Would he have treated 9/11 as a criminal act like the 1993 bombings? I'm sure it would have been more of the same from him.
We don't know, and we'll never know how Clinton (or Gore) would have responded. However, I would venture to guess that they would not have invaded Iraq.

For all of Bush's shortcomings, I think he did the right thing in treating it like an act of war.
Which he promptly sidelined in favor of going after Saddam Hussein.
And let's not forget the wonderful Patriot Act and the color-coded fun of DHS! 8)







Post#10294 at 10-19-2005 07:21 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
10-19-2005, 07:21 PM #10294
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Isn't it amazing. . .

. . . how much dear DA likes to talk (inaccurately, to be sure) about the Clinton presidency? Could it be that he has no good news to report today? Can't imagine why not. . .

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, one possible 4T trigger would be indictments of many major White House figures, followed by a blanket pardon. I would not rule this out. The Fox News talking points are out--this is, once again, the "criminalization of politics." (Of course, the Starr investigation was just "following the law wherever it leads"!!!!) I would not put it past our President to try this, even though it would totally shred his credibility for the next three years, which under our system would be a very serious matter.

David K '47







Post#10295 at 10-20-2005 02:57 AM by albatross '82 [at Portland, OR joined Sep 2005 #posts 248]
---
10-20-2005, 02:57 AM #10295
Join Date
Sep 2005
Location
Portland, OR
Posts
248

Re: Isn't it amazing. . .

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2
. . . how much dear DA likes to talk (inaccurately, to be sure) about the Clinton presidency? Could it be that he has no good news to report today? Can't imagine why not. . .

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, one possible 4T trigger would be indictments of many major White House figures, followed by a blanket pardon. I would not rule this out. The Fox News talking points are out--this is, once again, the "criminalization of politics." (Of course, the Starr investigation was just "following the law wherever it leads"!!!!) I would not put it past our President to try this, even though it would totally shred his credibility for the next three years, which under our system would be a very serious matter.

David K '47
Does anyone know when these indictments are set to happen (if they indeed do)? In the next couple weeks or so?







Post#10296 at 10-20-2005 03:14 AM by Opie [at Outside Elysium. Born in the year of the dope, 1973, and the month of the misfit, July. joined Sep 2005 #posts 299]
---
10-20-2005, 03:14 AM #10296
Join Date
Sep 2005
Location
Outside Elysium. Born in the year of the dope, 1973, and the month of the misfit, July.
Posts
299

Re: Isn't it amazing. . .

Quote Originally Posted by albatross '82
Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2
. . . how much dear DA likes to talk (inaccurately, to be sure) about the Clinton presidency? Could it be that he has no good news to report today? Can't imagine why not. . .

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, one possible 4T trigger would be indictments of many major White House figures, followed by a blanket pardon. I would not rule this out. The Fox News talking points are out--this is, once again, the "criminalization of politics." (Of course, the Starr investigation was just "following the law wherever it leads"!!!!) I would not put it past our President to try this, even though it would totally shred his credibility for the next three years, which under our system would be a very serious matter.

David K '47
Does anyone know when these indictments are set to happen (if they indeed do)? In the next couple weeks or so?
On Fitzmas, of course.
The poster formerly known as Jake has left the building.







Post#10297 at 10-20-2005 07:50 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-20-2005, 07:50 AM #10297
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Re: Isn't it amazing. . .

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2
... Meanwhile, back on planet earth, one possible 4T trigger would be indictments of many major White House figures, followed by a blanket pardon. I would not rule this out. The Fox News talking points are out--this is, once again, the "criminalization of politics." (Of course, the Starr investigation was just "following the law wherever it leads"!!!!) I would not put it past our President to try this, even though it would totally shred his credibility for the next three years, which under our system would be a very serious matter.
  • David K '47
I think even GWB sees the need to keep his powder dry for now. The blanket pardons come in the post-E2008 time frame. If Bush-Cheney leave early, the next Gerald Ford gets that job assignment.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#10298 at 10-20-2005 08:16 AM by Biddy5637 [at Washington, DC joined Apr 2005 #posts 582]
---
10-20-2005, 08:16 AM #10298
Join Date
Apr 2005
Location
Washington, DC
Posts
582

Re: Escalation, eh?

Quote Originally Posted by albatross '82
And let's not forget the wonderful Patriot Act and the color-coded fun of DHS! 8)
I don't think the color code system has really been adequately explained to the American people. When a decision is made to raise the threat level, there are actually different policies that become law. It's a quick way to give DHS the ability to act without the normal bureaucratic holdup. As far as the American people are concerned, it just means "be more vigilant." I'm sure I'm going to get called a neocon for this, but the DHS system isn't as useless as people say it is. The PATRIOT Act is another story, but even that has been used far more judiciously than I initially thought it would be.







Post#10299 at 10-20-2005 09:10 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
10-20-2005, 09:10 AM #10299
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Re: Isn't it amazing. . .

Quote Originally Posted by albatross '82
Does anyone know when these indictments are set to happen (if they indeed do)? In the next couple weeks or so?
Next couple of weeks is a pretty good guess. The grand jury expires on October 28th. At the end, he can either issue indictments, issue a report on what he found without indictments, or just walk away. Walking away after issuing so many subpoenas to so many high ranking officials seems highly unlikely. The phrase 'political firestorm' gets associated with that option. One of the few leaks coming out of the prosecutor's office is that there will be no final report. That leaves as the most likely option...







Post#10300 at 10-20-2005 09:55 AM by Uzi [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 2,254]
---
10-20-2005, 09:55 AM #10300
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
2,254

- -
-----------------------------------------