Mickey

It is relevant in grading the performance of our leaders even if we can't turn back the clock and fix it. I think it also has an effect on how much we might be inclined to support or even believe those same leaders now when it comes to present and future actions. If the history shows Cheney to be a mega liar when it comes to Iraq, we might not be so interested in listening to him the next time he is on Meet the Press. It sure doesn't answer the question of what the best course is in Iraq at this point.

I had no idea that yellowcake was that far removed from an actual weapon. Thanks for the information. Who is this Todd Johnston?

Makes Rubic's cube look like tic-tac-toe

I wish I had a dime for every post I have read here to the effect that "Thank God" people like Clinton, Gore and Kerry weren't President on 9/11 because they would never have had the stones to invade Afghanistan or Iraq or, in Kerry's case, to stay the course in Iraq. So when it suits the right, democrats never ever would have gone to war but when the war turns out maybe to have been a bad idea, then democrats get hit with these quotes as proof that a democratic President would also have gone to war. We are doves when the occasion is suitable for mocking doves and we are hawks when the occasion is suitable to mock hawks. Of course, the democrat they mock the most is the one who in fact did oppose the war, Dean. Doesn't really matter what position they take or what they do they are democrats and the partisan madness of the right and the faaaaar right is going to mock them regardless. Democrats have much to answer for with regard to this war, no doubt. However, this thing was and is a George W. Bush Production first, last and always. If it works, he will rightly get the credit but if it doesn't, he will rightly carry the blame.

This all sounds pretty crazy to me but the story is starting to get picked up here in the states so it will be making the rounds sooner or later so here goes: La Repubblica, an Italian magazine has published an explosive series of articles reporting the results of their investigation of connections between the Italian military intelligence agency, SISMI, and the forged documents which figured so prominently in the Yellowcake Caper. Those articles have spurred the Italian government to action as they now have a Parliamentary Commission investigating the matter. They have summoned the head of the agency, Nicolo Pollari, to testify regarding the role SISMI may have played in the forgeries. It has become clear that Italy is the original source of the forgeries. How that all came about is the subject of the articles. As near as I can tell, the allegation is that beginning in October of 2001, SISMI and primarily Pollari, was trying to convince the CIA that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger. The CIA was unimpressed with the data but the WH apparently was. It was these rumors that led to Wilson's trip to Niger after which he reported to the CIA that there was nothing to the rumors. Even so, the administration wanted to make the allegation in a major speech the President was going to give in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002. Only after Tenet personally called Stephen Hadley, Rice's deputy director at the NSC?, and in no uncertain terms told him that the intel was not sound, was the allegation removed from the speech. Meanwhile, Pollari, the main purveyor of the uranium-Iraq-Niger rumor, met with Hadley in early September of 2002. La Repubblica reports that SISMI had an asset working in Niger's embassy in Rome and a sometime operative it used to sell intel to France named Rocco Martino. Martino was introduced to the asset by SISMI Vice Captain, Antonio Nucera. Apparently the asset stole some stationary from the embassy and gave it to Martino. Shortly thereafter, writer Elisabetta Burba is contacted by Martino and told that he has some documents he thinks she woud be very intersted in. Burba meets with him and gets the documents, the forged documents about Iraq and Yellowcake, etc. She doubts their authenticity and suggests to her editor that she be sent to Niger herself to check out the story. He refuses and instead tells her to turn the documents over to the US. She turns the documents over to the US Embassy in Rome on October 9, 2002. Ultimately, these crude forgeries are the fig leaf used to justify the charges, later withdrawn as a mistake, made in the President's State of the Union Address that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." I can't read Italian so all I can do is read what others are reporting and I don't think they read Italian either. For all I know the information is based on evidence as unreliable as those now famous forgeries. The gist of the allegations is that the Yellowcake Caper involved the US soliciting trumped up evidence from the Italians who were happy to provide it and that evidence was used to help justify our invasion of Iraq. For more details: Laura Rozen-lots of details TPM on Italian Yellowcake AP picks up the story LA Times picks it up as well For those who can read Italian-the original ariticles We shall see if anything comes of this opera. In the meantime, leave the gun, take the cannolis. Update: Here is a link to the Italian Government's denial of the La Repubblica allegations: Italian Government Denies Involvement in the Yellowcake Caper

You keep consistently ignoring that additional laws are involved here, not just the IIPA.

How do you know it was the CIA that leaked the information and not someone at the Justice Department or some other person unconnected with either? Exactly how was the Justice Department going to keep secret the investigation, the grand jury hearings, the subpoenas, the appointment of a prosecutor, his budget, etc, etc, etc? Didn't we all already know that Valerie Plame had been outed by Novak? I don't see how, after that, security interests would be further harmed by the public discolsure of the CIA referral to Justice asking them to investigate the outing of Plame. What law was broken by leaking the referral by the CIA to the Justice Department? Why hasn't the Justice Department investigated this supposedly illegal leak? Let me add another Step, Step 1A: Change the subject.

If your argument is so weak that you have to borrow the courage of others and cheapen their ultimate sacrifice by using it to advance a petty argument on an internet discussion board, you might want to stop typing for a minute, take a breath and start over.

The defense of this basically follows these steps. Step 1: It didn't happen. Step 2: It happened but we didn't do it. Step 3: It happened and we did it but its not a crime. Step 4: It happened, we did it, it's a crime but it's no big deal. Most defenders have moved past step 1 and 2 while the rest seem to alternate between steps 3 and 4.

I don't think, from a secrecy standpoint, that the CIA would release any information as to "assets" put at risk by this mess. Thus, not having heard that operations were blown or national security compromised is not necessarily proof that it wasn't. I am not sure that such actual harm is a necessary showing to establish the crime. Further, there are other laws potentially involved besides the IIPA so if we are to speculate as to potential criminal charges and eventual convictions, we should expand the discussion beyond just the IIPA. Lastly, once we get to this stage of the inquiry, all we are really discussing is whether someone is going to go to jail as opposed to whether or not someone's actions were despicable enough to be forced to resign or at least reviled. For me, I think the political effect of all this is of more concern now than whether Rove ever sees the inside of a jail cell.

Exactly. As far as the country is concerned, these guys getting canned is all that matters. Whether or not any of them goes to a Club Med kind of jail for 30 days is of little consequence. From a political standpoint, their opponents will be able to credibly state that they orchestrated a nasty attack and political payback against Wilson for daring to speak out against the administration, even going after his wife and that they then lied and obfuscated to try to kill the investigation before they were revealed to be the bullies they are and they will be able to do so regardless of whether or not anyone is convicted of anything. At best, Rove and company will be reduced to a weak defense that what they did, no matter how despicable, was not technically illegal. If they want to call that a "victory" well then hooray for them. I think the question will soon be reduced to determining whether they are merely thugs and liars or are they thugs and liars who should actually go to jail. Its a question of degrees and I am not sure there is much of a difference from a political standpoint whether there is or is not a conviction.

With apologies to Don Corleone: "Libby's a pimp, he never coulda out fought Fitzy but I didn't know, until this day, that it was Cheney all along." There is likely nothing at all illegal about this most recent revelation but, as I emphasized in a discussion with KRC, the political ramifications are just as important if not more so than the outcome of the criminal cases that are brewing. I haven't analyzed Cheney's public statements on this issue to compare what he has said with the allegations raised in the Times story to see how dishonest he was being. Certainly though, that is going to happen soon enough and he will be in political hot water if it turns out he was lying in his public statements. A good comparison is that the American people were probably more upset with Clinton's bold faced lie that he "...did not have sex with that woman..." than they were with the cat and mouse deposition testimony he gave in the Jones case. Likewise, Cheney may have more trouble politically than he will when it comes to any criminal charges. As for Libby on the other hand, he looks to be in real danger of being indicted. It looks like he may very well have lied to the grand jury, in theory, to protect his boss from having his perfectly legal lies exposed. That theory would be valid if Cheney publicly denied any knowledge that Plame worked for the CIA and again, I have not had the chance to go through all he has said on the matter so its just a theory. It makes sense however. Why would Libby lie to cover up something that wasn't even illegal save to spare his boss from a major political mess prior to a re-election campaign? I wish Fitzgerald would save us from all this speculation and either indict or not already.

Very good points. Fletcher also shoots a lot of gaps instantly taking himself out of the play when the run is to a different gap.

I write this after having read that Republican senator Kay Bailey-Hutchinson referred to perjury in the context of the possible coming indictment in Rovegate as a "technicality". I think that if we are going to bring on a constitutional crisis in trying to impeach the President of the United States over a perjury charge concerning intensely private conduct ultimately ruled irrelevant in the case in which it occurred, there would be no reason not to pursue perjury charges against mere aides in a case involving national security. If Clinton's perjury was important enough to paralyze the executive office and begin a national seizure, certainly perjury by a handful of polical hatchet men easily replaced, involving national security no less, should be pursued.

Ultimately the Shelton play cost us, at most, 4 points and we lost 38 to 17 so I don't think it really mattered. The complete inability to stop Oakland's passing or running game was apparent from the second quarter on. Given how we played against a 1-4 team leaves me very little confidence, zero actually, that we have much of a chance against NE on the road especially after BB has had two weeks to prepare. It is a gut check game. If this team really is a contender and not a total fraud, they need to prove it next week despite all the reasons there are to believe they don't stand a chance. There is a big difference between being "in contention" and "not mathematically elimenated". We will see which kind of team we are next week.

Kay Stephenson was better than both of them, is he available?

Bingo in the fireside room. We were awesome against Cleveland, Miami and SF last year.

We ran the ball plenty to little or no effect while at the same time, the Raiders were marching up and down the field at random. We needed to get the ball downfield to try and keep pace. This isn't a simple problem of just running more or passing more. On defense you have a line that is soft against the run at both ends and in one tackle spot. They also are unable to put pressure on the QB without blitzing DB's which leaves you wide open both short and long in the backfield if you don't get the QB and most of the time, we don't. On offense, you have a never-was at QB, an O-line that can't pass block and run blocks only slightly better, you have a line that can't seem to go more than a few plays without a flag for hands to the face or holding. Add in a game plan that allows the defense to pretty much ignore anything more than 15 yards from the LOS and you are lucky if you can put up more than a touchdown or two each game. If they play anything like they did on Sunday for the rest of the year, we can look forward to a top 6 draft pick and a new GM although I wouldn't be surprised if Clements takes the blame and gets canned.

On a philosophical note, I have always been very suspect of investigations that do not start with a crime. Watergate began with an obvious crime which triggered an investigation to see who was responsible. What is very troublesome to me is when a person is investigated to see if they have committed a crime somewhere along the way. This particular investigation began with the public outing of a CIA agent and the CIA itself asked for an investigation of the matter. Given the nuances of the IIPA, you can't really tell if a crime has been committed without knowing the details which you can't know without an investigation. This episode at least began with a definable event, something that we absolutely know occurred. This was not an investigation in search of a crime and clearly, the prosecutor has doggedly stuck to this one event. He hasn't strayed into personal relationship, extraneous events and what not. I think by comparison, this investigation is a good example of how these things should be handled and the Clinton investigations, a good example of how not to conduct them.

Awww, c'mon you guys, Scowcroft is just another liberal pansy out to gut our national security forces. I think he is dating the recently separated Cindy Sheehan. It is nice to see some adult Republicans growing a set of balls and standing up to the neocon faction.

That might be true if the only allegation is a violation of the IIPA, but that is not the case. The Espionage Act is also reportedly being looked at and, of course, if Libby testified that he didn't tell Miller or anyother reporter that she worked at the CIA when in fact he did, that would be perjury. As for the IIPA, we could exhaust ourselves trying to figure out the nuances of that law. For example, what is crucial here, that she was undercover, that Libby knew she was undercover or once was or that he actually told someone she was undercover? Personally, I wouldn't read the act as requiring disclosing that "Joe Schome is an undercover CIA agent". I would think that it would be enough that Joe Schmoe is an undercover agent, the discloser knew it and told a reporter that "Joe Schmoe is a CIA agent". We could pick that law into pieces for days.

Fitzgerald isn't looking just at the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, a fact you consistently overlook. For example, there is the Espionage Act which could result in a prosecution of a person who has possession of information relating to the national defense which the person has reason to believe could be used to damage the United States or aid a foreign nation and who wilfully communicates that information to a person not entitled to receive it. In addition, Fitzgerald could be looking at obstruction of justice and perjury charges. Your finding of "not guilty" for these freaks is a little premature. Just as permature would be a judgment that they are in fact criminally culpable. Lets see what Fitzgerald has to say. Maybe there will be no charges, maybe there will be lots of charges. I think the political verdict is already in as to whether or not this was a political hatchet job and certainly, the core issue, WMD's and Iraq, is waaaay over, there were none. All that remains to be seen is whether someone is actually going to go to jail over this whole ugly episode.

Not quite true, in fact, completely untrue. Judy Miller at first either denied or conveniently forgot, when she testified before the Grand Jury, that she had met with Libby in June of 2003 but changed her tune when the prosecutor showed her Secret Service records showing that she met with him on June 23, 2003. That is when she went back to her notes and discovered that, lo and behold, she had met with Libby. She then went back to the Grand Jury and this is what she had to say: "Soon afterward Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, "Wife works in bureau?" I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A." Miller So she was told, for the first time, from good 'ol Scooter that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. By the way, Libby also was conveniently unable to recall that this meeting took place until confronted with the Secret Service records that so improved Judy's memory. Elsewhere in her notes the name "Valerie Flame" appears and as to that notation, she stated that she did not know where that came from but that is not the same thing as saying that she doesn't know who first told her that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, she knows she first got that info from Mr. Libby. People are trying to take that "I don't know where that note came from" to mean the same as "I don't know who told me about Wilson's wife being in the CIA". They are not the same.

Thanks, once again on the PPP we have been reminded for the umpteenth time that false charges of racism against white republicans is a bigger problem than actual racism. Whew, thank goodness because I almost forgot. I simply can't imagine why the President is polling at 2% among African Americans. It really is a mystery.

I grew up in central NY so I don't need a lecture on gun rights nor do I need to be enlightened that not all gun owners are Republican redneck ingrates. Not all democrats are anti-gun whacks out to save Bambi's mom. I just think there is a happy medium between your worry that "...every time someone gets shot, the door is open..." and a comprehensive bar on virtually all suits. I think we might be able to prevent the bad ones and still allow the reasonable ones without throwing them all out. Mostly, I think the states should decide which ones are good cases and which ones are bad rather than that decision being made for every one, everywhere by congress. As for pandering, state laws already make it pretty much impossible to make one person liable for the intentional torts of another which is what this legislation simply repeats. Why pass a law that solves a problem already solved at the state level? Perhaps to pander those devoted to gun rights?