Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

What a switch of attitude? How long have we been hearing here how shrewd, how calculating, how thorough, how tough, how experienced a prosecutor this man was, all we had to do is wait and this man would have Rove, Cheney, Bush and all the rest sitting in prison.

I and a few others have been pointing out for months at least that the man is way in over his head in a case that does not even involve a crime. Forget it, its a travesty of justice, a total and absolute waste of time and taxpayers money.

0 Replies

Okie, I think you are setting up a strawman to knock down. I don't recall anyone here saying that Fitz would be this super-effective prosecutor. Most of us had some hope that he would do a decent job. But, alas, we were let down.

0 Replies

Advocate, That's not totally true; I have "expected" Fitz to be a thorough and effective prosecutor and protector of the US Constitution from what I have read about him early on in his investigation, and said as much early on this thread. However, ever since then, he has been a big disappointment; not only because of the length of time it took him to charge Libby, just an underling of the Bush crime ring, but because all Fitz accomplished was charging the underling with a minor charge of "lying to the grand jury."

The important issue is not the lies, but the leak of Plame. That crime is being completely ignored, and many right-wingers believe a crime was never committed as a result.

Fitz has been a big disappointment.

0 Replies

Fitz did let the country down imo. The White House Iraq Group conspired against the Wilsons. "t r u t h o u t - Frank Rich: It's Bush-Cheney, Not Rove-Libby" Very little has been written about the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG. ... Joseph Wilson's C.I.A. mission to Niger, in which he failed to find any evidence ...
www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101605Z.shtml - 20k

0 Replies

So since Fitz never said it was a crime,that makes him incompetent?
Could it be he just knows more about the law then you do?

0 Replies

Maybe someday, someone, perhaps on his or her deathbed, will disclose why Fitz didn't do his job. This is too big to stay a secret.

0 Replies

Hopefully, Fitz might be waking up to a few things if he is very perceptive at all, after working with this case for months and years, which is the fact that there is alot of politics involved in this case from the very beginning. Perhaps the story will be told in future months and years in more books, similar to the book, "Sabotage," wherein it is explained how there are elements in the CIA that are involved in political games, not intelligence. To repeat the same thing I have maintained from the very beginning, I firmly believe that is what Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson were involved in, and they have nobody but themselves and their own CIA to blame for this fiasco. The real story is how the CIA was failing us so badly that a pathetic trip to Niger by none other than Joseph Wilson with absolutely no intelligence or undercover experience was held out as something more credible than years of undercover work in regard to the possible yellowcake link between Niger and Iraq. Incredible to say the least, and I do not blame Dick Cheney and the entire administration for being more than slightly irritated.

All of this is not surprising considering the fact that the CIA came to rely upon things like satellite monitoring instead of true intelligence work on the ground, thanks to previous administrations like Clinton's.

0 Replies

Okie, are you a Limbaugh researcher? Your post would make a great script for Rush.

The only politics here is the administration effort to wreak revenge, and effectively warn others to keep silent, against Joe Wilson for exposing the White House lie about yellowcake. Remember, it was a Rep AG who appointed a Rep special prosecutor, to look into the outing of a CIA spy.

Wilson was the perfect candidate to put the nail in the coffin encasing the false claim that Iraq was seeking yellowcake. He was a highly esteemed ambassador, served the USA in the area, and had contacts with everyone. Moreover, his findings and conclusions were, as later admitted by the White House, correct.

The Rep swiftboating of all opponents is sickening.

0 Replies

Why not just eliminate the CIA and let our former ambassadors collect intelligence for us from now on?

0 Replies

Quote:

Wilson was the perfect candidate to put the nail in the coffin encasing the false claim that Iraq was seeking yellowcake.

If I remember correctly,Wilson NEVER disproved that.
He did however,prove that Iraq didnt get any yellowcake.

0 Replies

Actually he did prove Iraq had met with Niger in regard to doing some trade, and yellowcake is about the only thing Niger had that Iraq would want, so in fact his trip added credibility to the administration's claim that Iraq was seeking yellowcake. The administration never claimed that they had obtained it. This is a point that becomes obscured every time this issue is discussed by the Bush opponents. We should also remember there was other intelligence besides Wilson's trip and the much ballyhooed false memo that indicates Iraq was seeking yellowcake.

Going back in history, I think some people speculate that Hussein actually thought he had weapons that he did not have, because the scientists were afraid to tell him the truth because if they did, they knew they might be killed. If Hussein did not know for sure what he had, how were we to know?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Actually he did prove Iraq had met with Niger in regard to doing some trade, and yellowcake is about the only thing Niger had that Iraq would want, so in fact his trip added credibility to the administration's claim that Iraq was seeking yellowcake. The administration never claimed that they had obtained it. This is a point that becomes obscured every time this issue is discussed by the Bush opponents. We should also remember there was other intelligence besides Wilson's trip and the much ballyhooed false memo that indicates Iraq was seeking yellowcake.

Why did Condi apologize for including this info in the SOTU address?

They've never apologized for anything other then this, ever. So why this?

Naturally, it's because they knew they were lying.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ineptness is what I think it was, cyclops. Why did Bush nominate Harriet Myers? There is your answer.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Ineptness is what I think it was, cyclops. Why did Bush nominate Harriet Myers? There is your answer.

Never apologized for it, though.

An apology is an admission that you made an error. The WH admitted that it made an error in this case; there's no point in arguing that they were in fact correct, they already admitted they were wrong.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
Ineptness is what I think it was, cyclops. Why did Bush nominate Harriet Myers? There is your answer.

Never apologized for it, though.

An apology is an admission that you made an error. The WH admitted that it made an error in this case; there's no point in arguing that they were in fact correct, they already admitted they were wrong.

Cycloptichorn

They were wrong to include it,but that does not mean they were wrong about it actually happening.

0 Replies

I think Bush apologizes when he doesn't need to. Democrats don't when they should. Bush should be less afraid of the Democrats and take them on, and he would actually be more loved than he is now.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I think Bush apologizes when he doesn't need to. Democrats don't when they should. Bush should be less afraid of the Democrats and take them on, and he would actually be more loved than he is now.

I highly doubt this is true. The country supports the Dems more then the Republicans on 10 out of 10 major issues at the moment. Highlighting the intransigence and incompetence of the Admin. doesn't help this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
I think Bush apologizes when he doesn't need to. Democrats don't when they should. Bush should be less afraid of the Democrats and take them on, and he would actually be more loved than he is now.

I highly doubt this is true. The country supports the Dems more then the Republicans on 10 out of 10 major issues at the moment. Highlighting the intransigence and incompetence of the Admin. doesn't help this.

Cycloptichorn

I cant help but think that that number would change if Bush had done a better job actually explaining things to the American public.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
I think Bush apologizes when he doesn't need to. Democrats don't when they should. Bush should be less afraid of the Democrats and take them on, and he would actually be more loved than he is now.

I highly doubt this is true. The country supports the Dems more then the Republicans on 10 out of 10 major issues at the moment. Highlighting the intransigence and incompetence of the Admin. doesn't help this.

Cycloptichorn

I cant help but think that that number would change if Bush had done a better job actually explaining things to the American public.

First, you must realize that he's doing the best job he is personally capable of doing.

Second, what do you think the public doesn't adequately understand?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
I think Bush apologizes when he doesn't need to. Democrats don't when they should. Bush should be less afraid of the Democrats and take them on, and he would actually be more loved than he is now.

I highly doubt this is true. The country supports the Dems more then the Republicans on 10 out of 10 major issues at the moment. Highlighting the intransigence and incompetence of the Admin. doesn't help this.

Cycloptichorn

I cant help but think that that number would change if Bush had done a better job actually explaining things to the American public.

First, you must realize that he's doing the best job he is personally capable of doing.

Second, what do you think the public doesn't adequately understand?

Cycloptichorn

I dont think its a matter of the public not understanding,I think its more a matter of the public not being given the information to make a decision one way or another.
Most of the info about some of the things that Bush has done has come from the Bush critics,with no answer from the President.
Any time only one side of an issue is given,it makes it tough to make an informed decision.

If Bush had answered his critics more,instead of just ignoring them so much,I honestly think the numbers would have been different.

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know