The 2000 milestone in Iraq

Some thoughts

Published on October 26, 2005 By Draginol In Current Events

In the battle of Okinawa, a small island in the Pacific ocean, over 12,000 Americans died and another 38,000 were seriously wounded.

Mind you, this was to take an island that was tiny and had a population less than part of Baghad. And we're still there today.

Luckily, Americans were a little bit tougher of skin back then. We didn't shirk or slink away from paying a high price to do things that were important in a larger sense.

2,000 Americans have died in Iraq over the past 3 years. That's 1/6th as many people who died -- within the span of a few days -- in a single battle on a single island in World War II.

Those Americans gave their lives in a cause they believed in. In a cause that serves our country and even the rest of the world even if much of that world (those ironically many of whom were either our enemies or sat on the side-lines back in World War II) doesn't appreciate it.

Those Americans were not sent there to find "WMD" or for "oil". They were sent there to topple an evil, corrupt regime that had twice attacked its neighbors, had used whatever weapons it had at hand in war, was violating the cease fire from the previous war with the coaliation, and quite clearly was working its way through the so-called "Sanctions" to the day when it could restart programs to gain for itself horrific weapons to use or distribute to enemies.

Those Americans were sent to a country that is literally in the middle of a region that is formenting people who want to exterminate not just every single American but the entire western way of life.

Those Americans gave their lives to help put in its place a country that we hope will become democratic and representative but at the very least won't harbor terrorists who can plan at their leisure further attacks on this country.

Those Americans gave their lives as a part of a broader war on Islamic terror. And while some don't see the connection between Iraq and Islamic militarism, the same could be said of not seeing the connection between the attack on Pearl Harbor and the US invasion of French North Africa.

Luckily, the greatest generation of Americans were made of sterner stuff than what today's Americans are apparently made of. They rolled up their sleaves and went to work and made possible the world we have today where we have the luxury to hyper-analyse every combat death that occurs in the name of securing freedom and security both there and at home.

The families and friends of those 2,000 men and women can hopefully take comfort that they gave their lives in a cause that was as noble and true as any cause that warriors have fought and died in. As an American, I want to express appreciation for their sacrifice that has helped make all of us a bit safer and helped make the world a better place.

Comments (Page 8)

106

COL Gene

on Oct 30, 2005

Diawa

I hope you just looked at 60 minutes. The Bush staff have damaged the securiry of this country.

107

Lee1776

on Oct 30, 2005

Yet Powell said on MTP, "it turned our that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading."

"comfortable at the time that I made the presentation it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community."

Gene, you and this article’s author is trying to make this statement into some statement of guilt for a direct knowing lie. But there is no evidence of that. His statements just confirms that the whole world's intelligence communities got it wrong or was duped. The Bush administration unknowingly used that faulty intelligence as backup for only one of three justifications for war. That is all Powell has said. All the accusation you are making is coming from your mouth or the author's, not Powell's. Come back when you have real evidence, not opinion from an op-ed piece.

PS: Sorry Diawa for interupting your debate with Gene.

108

Daiwa

on Oct 30, 2005

Thanks, Lee, for pointing out the obvious to Gene, not that it will penetrate that 4" thick calvarium of his.

The other thing that should be obvious to Gene is that there is a difference between "shit happens" and knowingly breaking the law. If every unintended consequence was justification for the kind of burning at the stake Gene wants to see happen, we'd soon have no citizens left to burn. Valerie Plame & Joe Wilson themselves did more to trumpet her outing than anyone else, doing more harm to what Gene seems to think was the single most important front company ever established by the CIA than Libby or Rove, by a long shot. Never mind that Wilson has been confirmed to have clearly lied in the process, intentionally, and not on the basis of "faulty intelligence".

Cheers,
Daiwa

109

Daiwa

on Oct 30, 2005

Diawa

I hope you just looked at 60 minutes. The Bush staff have damaged the securiry of this country.

Right. I'm sure there's noone with a score to settle at CBS. They're pure, intellectually honest and non-partisan. I'll get right on it, Gene.

Cheers,
Daiwa

110

COL Gene

on Oct 30, 2005

Daiwa

Since the comments on 60 minutes were those of other CIA Agents, I guess you think they are also wrong. They made it clear just how much harm people like Rove and Libby have done to this country by outing Mrs Wilson. It has NOTHING to do with CBS. Rove and Libby both knew the information about Mrs Wilson being a CIA agent was classified. Since when do officials give classified information about our CIA Agents to the press?

111

Daiwa

on Oct 30, 2005

Simple. Mrs Wilson can no longer function the way she did at the CIA . In adition, the entire cover company and all other agents that were part of it or worked with Mrs Wilson have a problem. The CIA itself thought it so important that they went to the Justice dept which resulted in a two year investigation. For two top officials to be talking to reporters about our CIA members is outrages. They should both be fired for just talking to the press and creating the loss of the CIA operation and all the tax money to conduct this investigation. For over two years the White House has been saying NO WHITE HOUSE STAFF WERE PART OF THIS AFFAIR. Another Bush lie!

Another Gene non-answer.

How, again, does this harm or undermine Wilson? This "motive" just doesn't make any sense. How could knowingly compromising a covert CIA front company constitute a weapon against Wilson? It defies logic. The only sane explanation is that neither Libby nor Rove had any clue she was part of a covert front company, and I'm sure that's exactly the way the CIA wanted it.

Furthermore, what the White House said some two years ago, when asked what would happen if anyone in the White House had anything to do with outting (intentionally compromising the identity of) a covert agent, is that they would no longer work in the White House. The left, Gene in particular, have glommed on to the code-phrase "anything to do with" and have been playing schoolyard na-na-na-na-na-na games ever since. The White House has not for over two years been saying "NO WHITE HOUSE STAFF WERE PART OF THIS AFFAIR." That is Gene's perverted twist on what they've actually been doing - freely allowing, in fact instructing, White House staffers to fully cooperate with Fitzgerald's investigation, telling them not to hide behind the fifth amendment, not instructing them to invoke executive privilege, not supborning perjury or filing knowingly false affidavits and attesting to their truthfulness, or otherwise obstructing Fitzgerald's efforts to find out if anyone violated the law. And guess what? No one did. No one stands accused by that grand jury of what the press claims occurred. And they're still claiming victory. What idiots they appear to rational people. No matter how much of the parlor game of guilt by repetition they play, my bet is it won't play out the way they want in the end. The media, by sheer unrelenting carpet-bombing, have managed to plant the notion that something illegal went down in the minds of a majority of Americans asked the right poll question, but I don't believe that given an unbiased account of events and a neutral poll question the same results would be obtained. The mainstream media, and people like Gene, have an agenda which they are going to pursue no matter the facts or the truth. Those pesky little impediments are not gonna slow them down in their pursuit of destroying Bush at any cost. They are pathetic losers with nothing constructive to offer.

Cheers,
Daiwa

112

Daiwa

on Oct 30, 2005

Since when do officials give classified information about our CIA Agents to the press?

Since about the time the CIA was established, if I'm not mistaken. There's more classified shit leaked to the press than Quaker has oats, to invoke an old phrase. The press would have nothing to do without leaks of classified information. The whole friggin media carpet-bombing campaign for the last year has been based entirely on leaks of classified or secret information ladled with copious amounts of biased media "analysis". To pretend this is somehow different than the crap that goes down every freakin day in DC is to be not just disingenuous but totally stoned. If what you claim is true, that current or ex-CIA employees are singing what CBS wants to hear, I may have to take Victoria Toensing's theory about the Wilson affair being a back-channel CIA disinformation op a little more seriously.

Furthermore, noone has even been charged with disclosing classified information. Libby has only been charged with "giving false testimony" yada-yada. And that has yet to be proven. This little victory dance is pathetic. You can be reliably certain that noone but Bush's enemies & critics are doing any leaking these days.

Cheers,
Daiwa

113

drmiler

on Oct 31, 2005

drmiler

If any country were to fly combat aircraft over the US what do you think we would do?

Saddam did not attack the US. He did not have the means to attack the US. He was not a threat even if he would have had WMD. Iran is far closer to having a WMD and has a much better military. They are more likely to attack Israel and start a mojor war. Bush screwed up by attacking Iraq and anyone that looks at the facts knows it. Now we are stuck just like Bush was warned by no less then his father.

Nice spin. The US did not sign a cease-fire/non-agression treaty did it? NO, but Saddam did! And here I thought you were ex-military. "If" you are, you're a piss poor excuse for one. You and I BOTH know that if you attack our military in any form, that is seen as an attack on the US.

114

drmiler

on Oct 31, 2005

Want to try again? Wilson outed his wife in a book loooong before this supposed Rove/Libby thing.

115

COL Gene

on Oct 31, 2005

Not so. The FBI investigated if the fact that Wilson's wife was a CIA Agent was known before she was outed. The answer was NO. For 18 years the CIA was able to keep that fact a secret.nThere is NO vaild reason why Rove, Lobby or any other Federal employee is giving CLASSIFIED information about our CIA Agents to the press. They should be fired for lose lips.

116

Dr Guy

on Oct 31, 2005

Nice try and wrong. Why do you try to make up lies? Do you find some type of security in producing a lie to back up your point?

117

kingbee

on Oct 31, 2005

Replay that news conference tape and tell me you don't know.

realizing this is way tangented and off-topic, not to mention lengthy, here is the transcript of fitzgerald's statement. i fail to see any clues to his political position (i didn't see video of the entire statement so i wouldn't know about any gestures, winks, grimaces or hand signs). perhaps you can show me what i'm missing?

FITZGERALD: Good afternoon. I'm Pat Fitzgerald. I'm the United States attorney in Chicago, but I'm appearing before you today as the Department of Justice special counsel in the CIA leak investigation.

Joining me, to my left, is Jack Eckenrode, the special agent in charge of the FBI office in Chicago, who has led the team of investigators and prosecutors from day one in this investigation.

A few hours ago, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia returned a five-count indictment against I. Lewis Libby, also known as Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff.

The grand jury's indictment charges that Mr. Libby committed five crimes. The indictment charges one count of obstruction of justice of the federal grand jury, two counts of perjury and two counts of false statements.

Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.

Now, something needs to be borne in mind about a criminal investigation.

I recognize that there's been very little information about this criminal investigation, but for a very good reason.

It may be frustrating when investigations are conducted in secret. When investigations use grand juries, it's important that the information be closely held.

So let me tell you a little bit about how an investigation works.

Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts.

It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.

Agent Eckenrode doesn't send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, "Just come back if you find wire fraud." If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that.

That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.

And, given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.

There's another thing about a grand jury investigation. One of the obligations of the prosecutors and the grand juries is to keep the information obtained in the investigation secret, not to share it with the public.

And, as frustrating as that may be for the public, that is important because, the way our system of justice works, if information is gathered about people and they're not charged with a crime, we don't hold up that information for the public to look at. We either charge them with a crime or we don't.

And that's why we've safeguarded information here to date.

But as important as it is for the grand jury to follow the rules and follow the safeguards to make sure information doesn't get out, it's equally important that the witnesses who come before a grand jury, especially the witnesses who come before a grand jury who may be under investigation, tell the complete truth.

It's especially important in the national security area. The laws involving disclosure of classified information in some places are very clear, in some places they're not so clear.

And grand jurors and prosecutors making decisions about who should be charged, whether anyone should be charged, what should be charged, need to make fine distinctions about what people knew, why they knew it, what they exactly said, why they said it, what they were trying to do, what appreciation they had for the information and whether it was classified at the time.

Those fine distinctions are important in determining what to do. That's why it's essential when a witness comes forward and gives their account of how they came across classified information and what they did with it that it be accurate.

That brings us to the fall of 2003. When it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown, investigation began. And in October 2003, the FBI interviewed Mr. Libby. Mr. Libby is the vice president's chief of staff. He's also an assistant to the president and an assistant to the vice president for national security affairs.

The focus of the interview was what it that he had known about Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, what he knew about Ms. Wilson, what he said to people, why he said it, and how he learned it.

And, to be frank, Mr. Libby gave the FBI a compelling story.

What he told the FBI is that essentially he was at the end of a long chain of phone calls. He spoke to reporter Tim Russert, and during the conversation Mr. Russert told him that, "Hey, do you know that all the reporters know that Mr. Wilson's wife works at the CIA?"

And he told the FBI that he learned that information as if it were new, and it struck him. So he took this information from Mr. Russert and later on he passed it on to other reporters, including reporter Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, reporter Judith Miller of The New York Times.

And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on on July 12th, 2003, two days before Mr. Novak's column, that he passed it on understanding that this was information he had gotten from a reporter, that he didn't even know if it was true.

And he told the FBI that when he passed the information on to the reporters he made clear that he did know if this were true. This was something that all the reporters were saying and, in fact, he just didn't know and he wanted to be clear about it.

Later, Mr. Libby went before the grand jury on two occasions in March of 2004. He took an oath and he testified. And he essentially said the same thing.

He said that, in fact, he had learned from the vice president earlier in June 2003 information about Wilson's wife, but he had forgotten it, and that when he learned the information from Mr. Russert during this phone call he learned it as if it were new.

When he passed the information on to reporters Cooper and Miller late in the week, he passed it on thinking it was just information he received from reporters; that he told reporters that, in fact, he didn't even know if it were true. He was just passing gossip from one reporter to another at the long end of a chain of phone calls.

It would be a compelling story that will lead the FBI to go away, if only it were true. It is not true, according to the indictment.

In fact, Mr. Libby discussed the information about Valerie Wilson at least half a dozen times before this conversation with Mr. Russert ever took place, not to mention that when he spoke to Mr. Russert, Mr. Russert and he never discussed Valerie Wilson or Wilson's wife.

He didn't learn it from Mr. Russert. But if he had, it would not have been new at the time.

Let me talk you through what the indictment alleges.

The indictment alleges that Mr. Libby learned the information about Valerie Wilson at least three times in June of 2003 from government officials.

Let me make clear there was nothing wrong with government officials discussing Valerie Wilson or Mr. Wilson or his wife and imparting the information to Mr. Libby.

But in early June, Mr. Libby learned about Valerie Wilson and the role she was believed to play in having sent Mr. Wilson on a trip overseas from a senior CIA officer on or around June 11th, from an undersecretary of state on or around June 11th, and from the vice president on or about June 12th.

It's also clear, as set forth in the indictment, that some time prior to July 8th he also learned it from somebody else working in the Vice President's Office.

So at least four people within the government told Mr. Libby about Valerie Wilson, often referred to as Wilson's wife, working at the CIA and believed to be responsible for helping organize a trip that Mr. Wilson took overseas.

In addition to hearing it from government officials, it's also alleged in the indictment that at least three times Mr. Libby discussed this information with other government officials.

It's alleged in the indictment that on June 14th of 2003, a full month before Mr. Novak's column, Mr. Libby discussed it in a conversation with a CIA briefer in which he was complaining to the CIA briefer his belief that the CIA was leaking information about something or making critical comments, and he brought up Joe Wilson and Valerie Wilson.

It's also alleged in the indictment that Mr. Libby discussed it with the White House press secretary on July 7th, 2003, over lunch. What's important about that is that Mr. Libby, the indictment alleges, was telling Mr. Fleischer something on Monday that he claims to have learned on Thursday.

In addition to discussing it with the press secretary on July 7th, there was also a discussion on or about July 8th in which counsel for the vice president was asked a question by Mr. Libby as to what paperwork the Central Intelligence Agency would have if an employee had a spouse go on a trip.

So that at least seven discussions involving government officials prior to the day when Mr. Libby claims he learned this information as if it were new from Mr. Russert. And, in fact, when he spoke to Mr. Russert, they never discussed it.

But in addition to focusing on how it is that Mr. Libby learned this information and what he thought about it, it's important to focus on what it is that Mr. Libby said to the reporters.

In the account he gave to the FBI and to the grand jury was that he told reporters Cooper and Miller at the end of the week, on July 12th. And that what he told them was he gave them information that he got from other reporters; other reporters were saying this, and Mr. Libby did not know if it were true. And in fact, Mr. Libby testified that he told the reporters he did not even know if Mr. Wilson had a wife.

And, in fact, we now know that Mr. Libby discussed this information about Valerie Wilson at least four times prior to July 14th, 2003: on three occasions with Judith Miller of The New York Times and on one occasion with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

The first occasion in which Mr. Libby discussed it with Judith Miller was back in June 23rd of 2003, just days after an article appeared online in The New Republic which quoted some critical commentary from Mr. Wilson.

After that discussion with Judith Miller on June 23rd, 2003, Mr. Libby also discussed Valerie Wilson on July 8th of 2003.

During that discussion, Mr. Libby talked about Mr. Wilson in a conversation that was on background as a senior administration official. And when Mr. Libby talked about Wilson, he changed the attribution to a former Hill staffer.

During that discussion, which was to be attributed to a former Hill staffer, Mr. Libby also discussed Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, working at the CIA - and then, finally, again, on July 12th.

In short - and in those conversations, Mr. Libby never said, "This is something that other reporters are saying"; Mr. Libby never said, "This is something that I don't know if it's true"; Mr. Libby never said, "I don't even know if he had a wife."

At the end of the day, what appears is that Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true.

It was false. He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly.

Now, as I said before, this grand jury investigation has been conducted in secret. I believe it should have been conducted in secret, not only because it's required by those rules, but because the rules are wise. Those rules protect all of us.

We are now going from a grand jury investigation to an indictment, a public charge and a public trial. The rules will be different.

But I think what we see here today, when a vice president's chief of staff is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, it does show the world that this is a country that takes its law seriously; that all citizens are bound by the law.

But what we need to also show the world is that we can also apply the same safeguards to all our citizens, including high officials. Much as they must be bound by the law, they must follow the same rules.

So I ask everyone involved in this process, anyone who participates in this trial, anyone who covers this trial, anyone sitting home watching these proceedings to follow this process with an American appreciation for our values and our dignity.

Let's let the process take place. Let's take a deep breath and let justice process the system.

I would be remiss at this point if I didn't thank the team of investigators and prosecutors who worked on it, led by Agent Eckenrode, or particularly the staff under John Dion from the counterespionage section in the Department of Justice; Mr. (Peter) Zeidenberg from Public Integrity, as well as the agents from the Washington field office and my close friends in the Chicago U.S. attorney's office, all of whom contributed to a joint effort.

118

COL Gene

on Oct 31, 2005

Dr. Guy

Several days before Libby was charged, the news was full of stories about FBI agents asking this very question. The answer was NO one knew she was an agent. The CIA agents interviewed on 60 Milutes last night said the very same thing. Her idendity was kept secret for 18 years. Face it-- The Bush White House did out her and lied about it for the past two years including the President's Press Sec.

119

Daiwa

on Oct 31, 2005

Fitzgerald's version is just that, the prosecutor's version. Libby may have intended to mislead him and if he did, let the chips fall where they may - he's responsible for his own conduct.

But if a serious breech of national security proportions occurred, why no indictments for anything but false statements, perjury and obstruction? The problem I have with Fitzgerald is he states those charges, then doesn't just talk about the timelines & alleged false testimony, he throws in a laundry list of national security reasons having nothing to do with the charges, which themselves say nothing about violating national security statutes.

And if his investigation was so "secret," who were all those people leaking on condition of anonymity throughout it?

Cheers,
Daiwa

120

drmiler

on Oct 31, 2005

See, you're no better than they are. Check out the USA Today piece and get some answers. Link

In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins. (Related story: Bush waits on Rove)

Six years later, in July 2003, the name of the CIA officer — Valerie Plame — was revealed by columnist Robert Novak.

The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.

"Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities.

This is what I've been saying all along. And "this" is why Fitzgerald could not get an indictment on the charges he wanted. Because THERE WAS NO CRIME to start with. It was all a left wing ploy that is falling apart.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!