All About Iraq (WSJ Editorial Calling on Fitzgeral to Close Shop)

WSJ ^

[jess35]

And, this is off-topic, but I must say it, Bush has picked a darn poor time to alienate so many of his base with the bizarre nomination of Harriet Meirs for SCOTUS

You did pick a poor time. Does this mean you'll secretly giggle behind your hand if indictments are handed down?

[hawkaw]

I agree with this article.

[lugsoul]

It is real easy to say they don't know what they are talking about when they have actually seen evidence and none of us have seen it.

As far as the clamor, the public record shows that CIA repeatedly followed up with DOJ, who they thought were ignoring the request for an investigation. Which would seem to indicate that this was not viewed at CIA as just a routine leak referral.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Afterall, there is a fairly large bureaucracy in D.C. that thinks it runs the show. These are lifetime government employees that have the attitude that they are forever, elected officials only temporary."

Just the other day, Colin Powell's former top aide (I forget the name) expressed exactly that viewpoint when he blasted Cheney and Rumsfeld. He actually described our ELECTED government as a "cabal," suggesting that - in his mind - the bureauracy had the right to run the government against the wishes of the elected officials. Now, if that kind of thinking is widespread in the CIA and at State and the DOD, the idea of this whole thing being engineered to subvert Bush becomes very possible.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Which would seem to indicate that this was not viewed at CIA as just a routine leak referral."

And in my opinion the reason they were pushing this was to undermine Bush.

[lugsoul]

As I've said on another thread, the x-factor, one way or the other, is harm assessment - which we may never hear any evidence on. If it is shown that the public discussion of Val Peel or B-J and Assoc. led to harm to an operative, asset, or investigation, that's going to carry some weight. If there was little or no harm, it will be easier to view this as all politics.

[jess35]

That's what a lot of folks seem to believe. But I think it defies logic.

Not really. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the WH and Justice couldn't get a straight, direct and accurate answer from the CIA on Plame's status and the Wilson boondoggle.

[Steve_Seattle]

You've refused on previous questions to answer my question why no one demanded an investigation when the NYT recently "harmed an asset" (citing leaks from current and former CIA officials) to blow the cover on the CIA operation to ferry captured terrorists to various countries for interrogation. To me, the intent to harm national security was obvious, the leaking of classified information was obvious, the crime was obvious, but it just passed by without comment or without indignation, and without you or Schumer or Kennedy or Pelosi demanding an investigation into this shocking crime. It's all BS, it's all politics, it's all hypocrisy. I'll beleive your sincerity about national security when you write a letter to your local paper about the NYT "outing."

[lugsoul]

I haven't refused to answer your questions. I've said that we don't know whether or not it is being investigated. I've also said that the NYT story was not the first time I had seen info on the use of the plane.

Your spinning is getting a little hysterical. I haven't been "demanding an investigation of this shocking crime." There IS an investigation, and I have commented on the information, and lack thereof, bearing on the actual legal issues that could be encompassed in the investigation and, like others, have opined about things that might explain some of the sketchy information. Your attempt to paint me as an advocate of one outcome or another simply fails. I simply haven't done so, except to state that IF the law was broken, the process should proceed accordingly. Nothing more than what the Administration has said, except I'm a bit more skeptical about some of the talking point positions that seem to indicate that a third-grader who hasn't seen any evidence could figure out there isn't a case.

[p23185]

Its about criminalizing policy differences. Those should be settled by voters not decided in the courts through questionable prosecutions.

Like Rush said this morning, the Congress should investigate the CIA for political scheming and the leak of the classified request to DOJ for the leak investigation to commence. I think the CIA is attempting to bring down this President and I believe that both Joe and Valerie are in the midst of this attempted coup. I hope that Fitzgerald will not attempt any politics, and also to refrain from indicting for "forgetting to mention something" in the process of the leak investigation. I think anyone with a brain (certainly not the LIBS) will admit there was no outing, and therefore the entire investigation is for naught. So to indict someone because he forgot to say something under oath is hypocritical.