Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

More patent nonsense. Iraq would have no reason to secure the stuff inasmuch there was no nuclear program going on.

Moreover, it was very easy to get the facts in Niger. Securing yellow cake is no walk in the park. One would have to get approval of the government and an international consortium, and then many trucks would have to be secured to ship the stuff. It would be very easy to find out whether Iraq was seeking to buy the material. Wilson confirmed two other strong reports, one by a general and the other by the ambassador.

0 Replies

So, when is trying to buy anything a crime or attempted crime?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

More patent nonsense.

Such "patent nonsense" as exists is to be found in your assertion. The Facts (note: 48 page .pdf download) are contrary to assertions the "16 Words" in any way were intended to deceive. "The Lie" is that "Bush Lied".

c i wrote:

So, when is trying to buy anything a crime or attempted crime?

Attempting criminal activity, whether successfully carried out or not, is itself criminal. For instance, it is illegal to attempt to buy illicit drugs or to engage the services of a prostitute. If you don't believe that, ask any cop where you can get some crack, or to fix you up with a hooker.

0 Replies

I suggest you go back and review the history of Saddam Hussein, the U.N. sanctions, and all of that cicerone, then maybe you might see the reasoning here.

0 Replies

Again, why would the publicity hound, Joe Wilson, not wish to testify about this whole affair. After all, he is an expert on this I thought. He could substantiate why his wife is covert, and all the other pertinent facts around this case. I would think Fitz might finally find out something, maybe even finally figure out after years of this nonsense whether the crime he is investigating is actually a crime. Yesss. That would be nice to finally establish, is this really a crime? What a total absolute waste of time and money, and an absolute joke of an investigation. The guy continues to make a mockery of this mess.

0 Replies

Saddam did not have WMDs. It doesn't matter what others thought. We had UN inspectors looking for WMDs when Bush chased them out to start his illegal war. History is meaningless unless irrefutable evidence is found in defiance of those UN mandates concerning WMDs. Bush didn't let the UN finish their jobs.

0 Replies

timber, You're talking about "some" US regional laws. Prostitution is still legal in some places in the US. So is having marijuana. We're now talking about world issues and world laws about attacking a sovereign country.

0 Replies

Prostitution is currently legal in only one state, Nevada, but not in
the major cities (Las Vegas, Reno, Carson City and Lake Tahoe). Also,
local cities/counties can elect to have it criminalized. There is a
great webpage with all of the details of Nevada's legalized
prostitution.

0 Replies

As for illegal drugs in the US, timber's threat of law enforcement is laughable at best. Is that why we don't have a drug problem in the US?

0 Replies

c i, you're bringing to the field an army of straw men.

To deal with just one of those, the point of UN monitoring was not to discover Sadaam's WMD's, it was to verify Sadaam's compliance with requirements that he freely, adequately, openly, and conclusively demonstrate he had destroyed known WMD stocks and related capabilities and research facilities and had discontinued efforts to obtain or develop WMDs. What the inspections confirmed - repeatedly and severally - and as in so many words what the official reports of the inspection teams stated - also repeatedly and severally - was that Sadaam defiantly persisted in material breach of those requirements.

17 UN Security Council Chapter 7 Resolutions went specifically to that point.

0 Replies

The only straw man is you, timber. Your opinions are full of holes, but you'll never admit it, no matter how much proof is shown.

You strill trying to equate Saddam's "trying to purchase" with our laws in the US?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Okie, you must know that Wilson is not the accuser. The state is accusing Libby of lying to the FBI and otherwise obstructing justice. Demanding Wilson testimony is a form of grey mail.

It is truly sickening the way the right denigrates decent, accomplished, and patriotic people because they have the temerity of criticizing the administration. Wilson and his wife served the taxpayers with distinction, and have been wrongfully attacked in return. There was similar treatment of Kerry, Pelosi, et al. And this is from people who had a moron and war criminal elected president.

Technically, yes, you are correct that Wilson is not the accuser. Practically, I think I am correct in believing Wilson and Plame are behind all of this, and started all of this. If they have nothing to hide, I think they have information that could be very pertinent to the case.

That is so much BS okie. You don't seem to have a clue about how the law works. Technically? Try factually, completely, or without any reservations, they are not the accusers. Was Fred Goldman the accuser in the OJ trial? Did Fred Goldman testify? No in both counts yet Fred Goldman filed the civil suit against OJ. Your argument is not factual at all. It certainly isn't practical. It is nothing but wishful thinking.

Quote:

And I fault Fitzgerald for not accessing what they might know under oath, in terms of Plame's covert status, her behavior, who she told what, who Wilson told and what, and whether it was consistent with the covert status she claimed. Rumor has it they were on the cocktail circuit in D.C. and her job was no secret. After all, we want the truth do we not?

Wilson and Plame really have nothing to do with Plame's covert status. That is determined by the CIA. The CIA is the source to testify on that matter. If you have some evidence beyond "rumor" please present it. Rumor is that Bush does drugs and is still drinking. Rumor is not fact. The point of finding the truth means "rumors" are not part of the equation.

Quote:

And it is the Wilsons that have filed the civil suit, so they are the accusers in that regard.

They have NOTHING to do with the criminal trial. This is ONLY the criminal trial right now. They are NOT the accusers any more than Fred Goldman was of OJ.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Advocate wrote:
More patent nonsense.

Such "patent nonsense" as exists is to be found in your assertion. The Facts (note: 48 page .pdf download) are contrary to assertions the "16 Words" in any way were intended to deceive. "The Lie" is that "Bush Lied".

c i wrote:
So, when is trying to buy anything a crime or attempted crime?

Attempting criminal activity, whether successfully carried out or not, is itself criminal. For instance, it is illegal to attempt to buy illicit drugs or to engage the services of a prostitute. If you don't believe that, ask any cop where you can get some crack, or to fix you up with a hooker.

Asking a cop for either of those things will not get you arrested. It might get you a good talking to but it doesn't rise to a criminal offense until you have money in hand and offer to buy. Conspiracy law is different. There you only need to discuss the intent to do a crime. Conspiracy law wouldn't apply internationally. But whether a crime is committed just by the attempt doesn't really matter in this case. There was no real evidence that any attempt to purchase was made. Very little evidence of even an inquiry to buy it, nothing more than a visit by a diplomat.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The only straw man is you, timber. Your opinions are full of holes,

Demonstrate any "hole" upon which any of my opinions as here in this discussion recently expressed might be predicate.

Quote:

but you'll never admit it, no matter how much proof is shown.

I submit, c i, that I have provided proof - in the form of objective, factual documentation from credible, authoritative source - in support of my position, while you to this point have brought to the discussion nought but opinion.

Quote:

You strill trying to equate Saddam's "trying to purchase" with our laws in the US?

You persist in straw man argument - my reference to attempting to obtain illicit drugs or sex was analogy without reference to any jurisdiction but rather went to the point of action with criminal intent - irrespective of specific action or particular jurisdiction. No attempt to equate anything to US law or to the law of any other jurisdiction was presented.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

c i, you're bringing to the field an army of straw men.

To deal with just one of those, the point of UN monitoring was not to discover Sadaam's WMD's, it was to verify Sadaam's compliance with requirements that he freely, adequately, openly, and conclusively demonstrate he had destroyed known WMD stocks and related capabilities and research facilities and had discontinued efforts to obtain or develop WMDs. What the inspections confirmed - repeatedly and severally - and as in so many words what the official reports of the inspection teams stated - also repeatedly and severally - was that Sadaam defiantly persisted in material breach of those requirements.

17 UN Security Council Chapter 7 Resolutions went specifically to that point.

"Defiantly persisted in material breach?" I don't know that the reports in 2002 said that. There were questions about destruction of some items. There were allegations of ongoing programs by the US but there was no evidence of a "material breach" that I know of. Can you point to the UNSCOM report that says there was a "material breach"? I am sure such a report would have been used by the US in telling us that we had to go to war in Iraq. I remember no such report.

0 Replies

28 June 1991: UNSC presidential statement condemns Iraq for flagrant violations of RES 687 in denying inspectors access

6 July, 1992: UNSC presidential statement declares that Iraq is in material breach of RES 687

8 January 1993: UNSC presidential statement terms Iraqi restrictions of UN aircraft a material breach of RES 687

11 January 1993: UNSC presidential statement condemns Iraq for material breach of RES 687 in preventing UNSCOM from flying its own aircraft

18 June 1993: UNSC presidential statement terms Iraq's refusal of cameras material breach of RES 687, warns of serious consequences

23 November 1993: UNSC presidential statement terms Iraqi border violations material breach of RES 687

12 June 1995: UNSC adopts RES 1060 demanding that Iraq grant immediate access to sites and terms Iraqi actions as clear violations of UN resolutions

21 June 1997: UNSC adopts RES 1115 condemning "clear and flagrant violations" of relevant resolutions, suspends sanctions reviews

22 December 1997: UNSCOM inspects "sensitive sites" after Iraq delays entry; UNSC presidential statement terms Iraqi obstruction a clear violation of relevant UN resolutions

14 January 1998: UNSC presidential statement declares Iraqi actions a clear violation

9 September 1998: UNSC adopts RES 1194 condemning Iraq and suspending reviews of sanctions until UNSCOM is permitted to resume full operations

31 October 1998: UNSC press statement condemns Iraq, calls move a flagrant violation of UN resolutions

12 September 2002: UNSC begins discussion on Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions

SOURCE

And as icing on the layer cake served above: UN Press Release SC/7654
8 November 2002:

0 Replies

Nice going, timber. We all know that stuff; what matters is what happened after that last resolution. We had UN inspectors in Iraq. You're still full of holes. You need to get "current."

0 Replies

Once more, c i - demonstrate these "holes" of which you speak.

0 Replies

parados already did a yeoman's job.

0 Replies

"Material breach" (years earlier) and what happened in 2002-2003 only applies to what the US did to Iraq; preemptively attacked a sovereign country without justifiable cause. UN inspectors were in Iraq looking for them. Bush chased them out. No WMDs were ever found after Bush's preemptive attack based on Saddam's WMDs - because none existed at that time.

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know