Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Interesting reference to the anthrax by gungasnake. That event seems to have been strangely forgotten as if it doesn't matter, and I am not aware that anyone ever ascertained who did it and where the anthrax came from for sure? At first, it seemed investigators thought it came from U.S. labs, but have later moved away from that theory I think, so indeed it is still possible if not likely that it came from Iraq, is it not? If not from within the U.S., who else in the world would be the prime suspect, and apparently almost every American scientist with access has been investigated with no good leads?

Delusional

How predictable! Now that Scott McClelland has spilled the beans on the cover-up concerning the Plame Case, they want to change the subject.

Ah shucks, it wasn't no big deal on Roxi's part, Okie. You and your cohorts daily provide such shining examples that even you would have grasped the meaning.

We will simply have to wait for the details to know just what this really means, and what the specifics of his allegations are.

Yes, pretending that this isn't clear is the strategy I advise you to take.

He, in effect, accused the Gang of Five of a criminal conspiracy.

I want to see the details first, blatham. I want to know exactly what he was told that he considers to have been deceived about, and just how clearcut it was.

The fact still remains that Novak was the first to make her identity public, and his sources included primarily Armitage, with apparently a confirmation by Bill Harlow of the CIA, and by Rove. But wasn't the conversation with Rove when the subject came up something like Rove saying, "have you heard that too," or something to that effect?

And the fact remains that Fitzgerald grilled all of these people, and chose not to file any charges against anyone but Libby for a procedural crime. I can only presume that he does not have the evidence to support prosecution of the outing.

If I said this does not appear to be damaging to my argument and that it is not at all troubling, I would be lying, but I will wait for more details.

No, he did not.

Did so.

Whats your take on it so far, Ticomaya?

Having engaged blatham in the past, I can tell you from experience that he will expect you to accept what McClellan says as gospel, without opportunity to hear from the other side, and if you choose to not do so, he will determine you to not be a functioning moral agent capable of changing your mind regardless of data input, or some other such nonsense.

I don't have much in the way of information, but just from a plain reading of the quoted text, I can plainly see that Roxxxxanne has performed another of her amazing leaps of logic. "I unknowingly passed along false information" + "X was involved in my doing so" does not = "X has committed a criminal act."

I also noticed the careful parsing.

I only considered it significant b/c he specifically named el presidente. It seemed superfluous without further explanation at some point, and it's an interesting question what explanation that could be; I have a hard time thinking of any answers which will come off well, really.

Cycloptichorn

Ticomaya, I agree it is difficult to judge by just seeing a few sentences pulled out of the book without reading the context. That is why I wait for the details.

Intellectual honesty is tough to find here on this forum, and if this is damaging to my opinion, so be it, but it also needs to be balanced with everything else that we know about this.

Speaking of intellectual honesty, I posted just 2 pages ago what Valerie Plame said about her fears of WMD as our soldiers were entering Iraq. The central thrust of Joseph Wilson's operation is that the administration lied us into war over WMD, yet his own wife that worked in the CIA in regard to WMD expressed her fear of Saddam Hussein's potential WMD. If this does not portray the hypocrisy and conflicted messages that we hear about this, I don't know what does. Yet the people that claim Bush knowingly lied about WMD blithely go on their way and explain away all of this. Is it too much to expect some intellectual honesty on both sides?

For anybody who might have missed it or otherwise come in late.....


Saddam Hussein was provably involved in the anthrax attacks which followed 9-11. That means that George Bush had very few options unless you call letting somebody poison the US senate office building with anthrax and just skate an option which is brain-dead. He could do what he did, which was try to take the high road, eliminate the Hussein regime, and try to construct a rational regime in Iraq both to prevent further attacks and to provide an example of rational government in the region, or he could do what I would have done, which would have been to level both Mecca and Medina, and ban the practice of I-slam not just in the US but throughout the world.

Most people would probably want to try what W. did first.


The first case of anthrax after 9-11 (Bob Stevens) showed up about ten miles from where Mohammed Atta himself had been living, i.e. the short drive from Coral Springs to Boca Raton Flori-duh.

The last previous case of anthrax in a human in the United States prior to 9-11 had been about 30 years prior to that.

There are other coincidences. For instance, the wife of the editor of the sun (where Stevens worked) also had contact with the hijackers in that she rented them the place they stayed.

Atta and the hijackers flew planes out of an airport in the vicinity and asked about crop dusters on more than one occasion. Indeed, Atta sought a loan to try and modify a crop duster.

Atta and several of the hijackers in this group also sought medical aid just prior to 9/11 for skin lesions that the doctors who saw them now say looked like anthrax lesions.

Basically, you either believe in the laws of probability or you don't. Anybody claiming that all these things were coincidences is either totally in denial or does not believe in modern mathematics and probability theory.

While the anthrax in question originally came from a US strain, it isn't too surprising that Iraq might have that strain since that strain was mailed to laboratories around the world years earlier.

Nonetheless, it was highly sophisticated, and went through envelope paper as if it weren't even there; many thought it to be not only beyond the capabilities of Hussein but of anybody else on the planet as well including us. Nonetheless, later information showed Husseins programs to be capable of such feats:


http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html





Basically, the anthrax attack which followed 9/11 had Saddam Hussein's fingerprints all over it. It was particalized so finely it went right through envelop paper and yet was not weaponized (not hardened against antibiotics). It was basically a warning, saying as much as:




There is no way an American who had had anything to do with that would not be behind bars by now. In fact the one American they originally suspected told investigators that if he'd had anything to do with that stuff, he would either have anthrax or have the antibodies from the preventive medicine in his blood and offered to take a blood test on the spot. That of course was unanswerable.


The basic American notion of a presumption of innocence is not meaningful or useful in cases like that of Saddam Hussein. Even the Japanese had the decency to have their own markings on their aircraft at Pearl Harbor; Nobody had to guess who did it. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, is like the kid in school who was always standing around snickering when things went bad, but who could never be shown to have had a hand in anything directly. At some point, guys would start to kick that guy's ass periodically on general principles. Likewise, in the case of Saddam Hussein, the reasonable assumption is that he's guilty unless he somehow or other manages to prove himself innocent and, obviously, that did not happen.


At the time, the US military was in such disarray from the eight years of the Clinton regime that there was nothing we could do about it. Even such basic items as machinegun barrels, which we should have warehouses full of, were simply not there. Nonetheless, nobody should think they would get away with such a thing and, apparently, Hussein and his baathists didn't.

Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" documents some of this:



I mean, we didn't even have fricking machinegun barrels anymore. A friend of mine called up several barrelmakers about a barrel for a target rifle in the early spring of 02 and was told they were working 24/7 making machinegun barrels and didn't have time for any sort of civiliam firearm business.

A country with any sort of a military at all has to have warehouses full of that sort of thing and we had ******* none. We basically needed to go into Iraq the day after 9-11 and we were not able to due to the state Slick KKKlinton had left the military in, it took two years of building.


In the case of nuclear weaponry there appears to have been a three-way deal between Saddam Hussein, North Korea, and Libya in which raw materials from NK ended up in Libya to be transmogrified into missiles pointed at Europe and America by Saddam Hussein's technical people and with Iraqi financial backing (your oil-for-terrorism dollars at work), while Kofi Annan and his highly intelligent and efficient staff kept the west believing that their interests were being protected:



Muammar Khadaffi has since given the **** up and renounced the whole business. That sort of thing is one of the benefits of having our government back under adult supervision since 2001.

The Czech government is sticking with its story of Mohammed Atta having met with one of Saddam Hussein's top spies prior to 9-11 and there are even pictures of the two together on the internet now:

http://thexreport.com/atta_and_al-ani_photo_and_analysis.htm



Then again as I mentioned, there's the question of the anthrax attack which followed 9-11. Saddam Hussein's the only person on this planet who ever had that kind of weaponized anthraxs powder.

http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html

Moreover it does not take hundreds of tons of anthrax powder to create havoc.

The sum total which was used was a few teaspoons full. In other words, a lifetime supply of that sort of thing for a guy like Saddam Hussein could easily amount to a hundred pounds worth, and I guarantee that I could hide that in a country the size of Iraq so that it would not be found.

The question of whether or not Hussein had 1000 tons of anthrax powder is simply the wrong question. The right questions are, did the guy have the motive, the technical resources, the financial wherewithal, the facilities, and the intel apparatus to play that sort of game, and the answers to all of those questions are obvious.

More of the same story, for anybody who needs any more...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1925706/posts

source

Details: McCelllan recounts his news conference in which he told reporters that Libby and Rove were not involved in the leak. Then he said there was one problem, it wasn't true. He further went on to say the "highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved" in his doing so. Pretty detailed and straight foward to me. Of course he could be lying, maybe he is a closet democrat working for Hillary Clinton. Or maybe he is needing to buy his kids some shoes.

I think, revel, that these folks have their own world and who are we to begrudge them that? They may be noticing that the total population of that world they are in is rather quickly diminishing but then again, they may not, and who are we to begrudge them that?

So, I lay the entire case out for you and that's all you have to say? You LIKE the idea of dying from anthrax??

I mean, in a just world, you wouldn't have George Bush or Dick Cheney to protect your sorry ingrate ass from something like that.