Skip to main content

View Diary: WSJ: Fitzgerald going after WHIG on conspiracy charges (374 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's so big (4.00)
    WHIG started up to figure out how to sell the war. What if they gilded the lily and faked the document from Niger, routed through Italy and Britain, just in time for Bush's January 2003 State of the Union speech? It always struck me when Bush spoke, he said "British intelligence has learned..." I couldn't understand why he chose to distance himself from one of his central arguments for the war, the nuclear threat from Saddam. Why did he do that, why were those particular words chosen. That speech is poured over, again and again, by warriors who fight with words. Plus it doesn't ring true, if it's in his speech didn't our intelligence agency learn it from their intelligence agency simply because it's in the speech?

    I agree that these people committed a serious crime in attacking Ms. Wilson in a political battle, but DON'T forget - someone forged the original Niger document, right? It didn't just drop out of nowhere. Could it have all been cooked up in the situation room, by WHIG? I conceed that it's entirely possible that some third party with a separate agenda, read Ahmed Chalabi, forged the memo to prop-up the administration claims of WMD, newcular WMD. How likely is that? Chalabi was already in with Rummy over at the special intelligence operation at the Pentagon.

    My dearest wish is that Fitzgerald indicts for crimes concerning the outing but he has enough to convince a judge or 5 that more crimes were committed in the "16 words" controversy. Serious crimes - not chicken shit conspiracy stuff, Bush "lied us into war" kind of crimes.

    •  You know, you have finally put into words (none)
      something that was bugging me, and I wasn't even aware that it was--the bit about knowing about the Niger yellowcake "from British intelligence."  You're absolutely right--this statement is fishy just from his having made it.  The US gets info from around the world all the time, US govt folks vet it, and if it's important enough, a president talking about it in a speech to the nation would just talk about it as "our intelligence officials have learned...".  Later on, if someone wants clarification, details as to where specific info originated sometimes gets publicly released--but this was a distancing manouevre, I just hadn't seen it in the speech before.  Thanks!

      ...the White House will be adorned by a downright moron...H.L. Mencken

      by bibble on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 10:34:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That forgery (none)
      is one childishly pathetic job to be done by people with the arrayed forces of the free world's graphics professionals and equipment at their disposal. Just saying. Third party if anything, but for that thing even to be approved by people in the WH is kind of hard to believe.

      Remember that the only person you can count on is
      yourself, and even that only sometimes. -Tristan Bernard

      by timelad on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:37:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Clearly, (none)
      creating propaganda to justify an unjustifiable war is an impeachable offense.

      What is essential is invisible.

      by bebimbob on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 08:02:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site