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 9)

121

Daiwa

on Oct 31, 2005

It may be a little unfair to say those were charges he "wanted" - that was the job he was initially given by the DOJ, to investigate whether the 1982 statute had been violated. Otherwise, I agree, and I'm somewhat bothered that when he realized the statute had not been violated, something he would have known early on, he went back and asked for authority to pursue other charges. I say somewhat because the Whitewater investigation took off in other directions as well and the way the special prosecutor laws are set up, this is not out of bounds, at least as I understand it.

Cheers,
Daiwa

122

kingbee

on Nov 01, 2005

Because THERE WAS NO CRIME to start with

interesting (altho pretty much expected) you left this part out:

(referring to ms toensing ) Like Sanford, she doubts Valerie Wilson, as she now refers to herself, qualified as a "covert agent" under that law. She and Sanford also doubt Fitzgerald has enough evidence to prosecute anyone under the Espionage Act. That law makes it a crime to divulge "information relating to the national defense" that "the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury" of the nation.

But, Toensing said, "reading between the lines, I'd say he's got a 'Martha Stewart case' " involving perjury or obstruction of justice. In other words, though a crime may not have been committed at the start, one may have occurred during the investigation when someone lied to Fitzgerald or to a federal grand jury.

if authors of the act aren't able to offer something more conclusive than 'doubts' about potential culpability under the terms of such a complex statute, the person charged with investigating possible violations needs to acquire as much evidence as possible.

as fitzgerald points out, it appears libby deliberately attempted to sabotage that investigation. unless he was smoking crack--even if he was smoking crack--it's difficult to believe he was confused and thought his source for information about ms plame came from reporters.

123

kingbee

on Nov 01, 2005

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

considering the length of his statement, these few paragraphs don't seem to qualify as a laundry list, but more like just about exactly the amount of backround information required by someone who had no other knowledge of the case.

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.

....

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.

i've yet to see any reasonable explanation of why cheney, rove and libby felt their need to reveal information about ms plame trumped their obligation to keep classified information confidential and/or risk the possibility of violating the 1982 law.

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

it seems obvious that none of the leaks came from anyone truly privy to the hearings or investigations...at least until the day of the announcement. none of the prior leaks proved to be even close to accurate.

124

kingbee

on Nov 01, 2005

daiwa...

you may be right about fitzgerald unwittingly telegraphing his political position. he coulda gone into a great deal more detail if he wished to. i would have.

125

Chakgogka

on Nov 01, 2005

realizing this is way tangented and off-topic, not to mention lengthy,

But useful all the same. Espcially to an informationally underprivileged foreigner who is following it all from the outside. The conservatives here on JU seem to be claiming Fitzgerald as a raging leftist out to irresponsibly damage the administration in any way he can. What you posted (to this benighted foreigner) just sounds like someone doing his job.

126

bigrickstallion

on Nov 01, 2005

Make that 2026.

Thats a 1% growth of the body count in the short time since the back and forth "debate" on this thread began. In other words for every 5 posts to be read on this thread a US solidier was killed.

The unanswered question of course is.... for what?

on Nov 01, 2005

on Nov 01, 2005

for freedom.....so a nation can live in peace someday without a dictator cutting off their hands, and said dictators son raping their daughters.

Why should they NOT be allowed that luxury.....that is a basic human right, right?

129

COL Gene

on Nov 01, 2005

The most likely reason no one was charged with the crime of outing a CIA Agent is because of the complexity of the 1982 CIA Shield law itself. There have been many articles of how almost imposible it is to have anyone do all the things required to be charged with breaking that law.

That does not change the fact, Rove and Libby provided classified information to reporters. They should be removed from their jobs for that action. If they also broke our laws, thay should be punished as the law provides if convicted.

130

drmiler

on Nov 01, 2005

Both you and kb I guess still don't get it. According to the LAW being used, THERE WAS NO CRIME! This quote says it all. It comes from USA Today.
If they both returned from their assignments in 1997 and the supposed outing took place in 2003....GUESS WHAT? NO CRIME. 5 years is the drop point isn't it? Do the math, let's see....looks like "6 YEARS" to me which would put it "over" the time limit. And in doing so, there should have been NO investigation in the first place! Now if it can be proven in a court of law that "Scooter" messed up, then hang his butt out to dry! But by all rights he shouldn't have been questioned in the first place if no crime was committed.

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.

And just an fyi.....this was taken by USA Today from Wilson's "OWN WORDS"!

131

Dr Guy

on Nov 01, 2005

The conservatives here on JU seem to be claiming Fitzgerald as a raging leftist out to irresponsibly damage the administration in any way he can.

Not True. I dont see any politics in his endeavors, just a big ego and a chance to make a big name for himself. I personally think he would be equally rabid going after Clinton and his crimes as he would Rove or Scooter.

132

Dr Guy

on Nov 01, 2005

That does not change the fact, Rove and Libby provided classified information to reporters.

Hey COl Klink, even Fitzgerald does not know those facts. In FACT, no one knows those facts because they are not facts. You cant tell fact from fiction, can you?

133

Daiwa

on Nov 01, 2005

The conservatives here on JU seem to be claiming Fitzgerald as a raging leftist out to irresponsibly damage the administration in any way he can.

Noone I've read here has said that, Chak. I've only said that he went to great lengths to justify the charges on the basis of national security when he's not charged anyone with violating national security statutes. Fitzgerald himself has otherwise acted responsibly. Whether his version of events, which is the only version we have so far, is the whole story remains to be seen. Here, we at least give lip service to the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" - except for the MSM, Joe Wilson & other Democrats.

i've yet to see any reasonable explanation of why cheney, rove and libby felt their need to reveal information about ms plame trumped their obligation to keep classified information confidential and/or risk the possibility of violating the 1982 law.

I'm still not convinced any of this was intentional or "needed," as so many seem to assume. The motive has problems in my view.

I'll say it again, Gene - the reason noone was charged with a "the crime" is that no such crime was committed. The law was written the way it was for a reason. "Many articles" doesn't mean shit. Stop calling them guilty of breaking this law when not even Fitzgerald, after two years of trying, could find evidence they did so. If he eventually comes up with evidence they did, let him charge them. Until then, you are just demagoguing.

Cheers,
Daiwa

134

COL Gene

on Nov 01, 2005

Wrong Dr Guy

Two reporters said Rove and Lobby were the FIRST to out Mrs Wilson. Fitzgerald knows that. He said the outing was wrong. The issue is the law is so complex it is almost impossible to be charged with a crime under the 1982 law. No one has said Rove and Libby are not responsible for telling the press classified information about Mrs Wilson. They are the ones that did that and should be canned for flapping their gums about our CIA Agents. There is no possible justification for them talking to the press and giving out classified information. Rove told Libby the information about Mrs Wilson was soon to be declassified. Thus he knew it was classified when he told Cooper.

135

Daiwa

on Nov 01, 2005

Once again, Gene, Congress didn't say, "Let's make a law that is so complicated noone can be charged, let alone convicted, just so we'll have something on the books we can use to make people look bad." The law determines what constitutes a violation and a violation did not occur, therefore no crime. This "complexity" dodge is comical.

It's also cute how the left and other Bush-haters have fallen so conveniently in love with the CIA. Not long ago, outting a CIA agent would have been cheered as a victory against the dark side.

Cheers,
Daiwa

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!