Skip to main content

View Diary: Frank Rich: Closing On The Big Enchilada (165 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  you have the timeline all screwed up (none)
    the niger papers appeared in late 2001

    Wilson traveled to Niger in 2002

    Cheney began asking questions about Wilson in 2003

    who sent Wilson is irrelevent

    Scooter Libby told a false and misleading tale, a whole and complete fabrication, about where he learned about Valerie Plame

    in order to prove a crime, Fitz needs to prove motive

    so Fitz is going to investigate the orgins of the Niger forgeries

    Fitzgerald isn't investigating ANYTHING about Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame

    this is all about bush, cheney, rove, libby, et al

    •  the funny thing is (4.00)
      the yellowcake stuff was always bullshit.

      There was tons of the stuff in Iraq, it was inventoried and monitored, after the first Iraq war.

      It was still there when the neocons rolled in with shock and awe.

      It's still there today.

      It was one of the things the UN inspectors kept an eye on. Bush 41 was so concerned about it that he made the decision to leave the stuff there, just seal it and check it.

      Sadam never had a way to refine it into weapons grade uranium.

      Sadam could have had a million tons of the stuff, and not been one inch closer to building the bomb.

      The first lie was that having yellowcake meant a bomb was coming.

      "Just watch me"... Pierre Elliot Trudeau

      by PeteyPuck on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 01:11:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not true, I think (none)
      in order to prove a crime, Fitz needs to prove motive

      From
      Georgia10's diary
      disecting the recent WSJ oped, you learn this:


      See, you can tell a lawyer didn't write this (hell, you can tell logical being didn't write it) but let me explain something. Despite what Sam Waterson may have you believe, motive is not an element of an offense. Intent is. And as any first-year law student can tell you, intent does not equal motive. Motive sure makes it easier to prove your case, but the intent requirement of the law means that a person just meant to commit the action which constitute the act of the crime.

      I'll take georgia10's word for it.

      Restore Democracy! Denounce the GOP (George Orwell's Party)!

      by high5 on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 01:38:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  a jury has to buy the story (none)
        Fitz might not need a motive under the law, but he's gonna need a motive to provide the full narative to the jury

        after all, WHY WOULD THEY LIE ???

        once you prove that libby and cheney had motive to lie about their war evidence, anything is possible

        scooter already provided a whole narative out of thin air

        what else did he lie about, and WHY

    •  I beg to differ (none)
      "Fitzgerald isn't investigating ANYTHING about Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame"

      The investigation IS about Plame. But Fitz said he needs to know the who, what, when, where and WHY of it to put it all together.

      The WHY of it WILL go to a conspiracy, but it starts with WHY was Wilson sent to Niger and by whom and that involves Cheney, and Cheney told Libby about Plame for some reason. Fitz knows what happened after that I'm positive. He needs the before part. First he needs Libby to confirm that he got the information from Cheney and then he can go after Cheney.

      The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud. -Coco Chanel

      by Overseas on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 03:51:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The why is pretty straightforward (none)
        Wilson was sent to check on the contents of the letter. I'm sure the CIA was asked to send somebody, and since Plame was an expert in that area, she may have been asked for advice too.

        It does make sense to send her husband - he had been an ambassador in the area, he would have access to a lot of people that others wouldn't have. Also, since his wife knew who to talk to, and what to look for, she could go with him. Neither thing would raise alarms. I'm sure Wilson had people he could visit there, and it's not uncommon to go visit friends/areas where you've worked. Didn't her cover company work there as well?

        It certainly makes sense, more sense than sending somebody who had no legitimate contacts in the area.

        •  BUT (none)
          Cheney already KNEW the Niger stuff was phony. The CIA already KNEW the stuff was forged. Why send him?

          The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud. -Coco Chanel

          by Overseas on Sun Oct 30, 2005 at 05:28:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  double checking (none)
            there is such a notion as double checking and triple checking information

            and I don't understand your contention:

            Cheney already KNEW the Niger stuff was phony. The CIA already KNEW the stuff was forged. Why send him?

            How do you prove that cheney knew the documents were forgeries in early 2002 ???

            I understand real world facts (and I still don't believe your statement), but in early 2002, nobody in America had seen the actual documents, so I doubt that any agency or person knew the documents were forgeries at that time

            cheney may have known because cheney may have known about the plot before the documents were created, but proving that would be very difficult

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site