Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FITZGERALD DOCUMENTS RELEASED
US Dept. of Justice | oct. 28, 2005 | Patrick Fitzgerald

Posted on 10/28/2005 10:14:53 AM PDT by blogblogginaway

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1028051plame1.html


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cialeak; doj
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 last
To: ravingnutter

"My money is on Tenet as Novak source #1"

He was my no. 2 after Wilkerson, but Novak made an odd comment about Tenet recently so I'll say its a tie between the two.


101 posted on 10/28/2005 11:18:08 AM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway

Pat seems nervous.


102 posted on 10/28/2005 11:22:54 AM PDT by nitejohnboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nitejohnboy
Pat seems nervous.

He should be. He spent two years and pulled an Earle at the last minute.

103 posted on 10/28/2005 11:24:34 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

"PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The U.N. Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the U.N.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the U.N. that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the U.N. weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to U.N. Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though U.N. resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.

For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program." In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness.

Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors. This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.

If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that.

May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America."


104 posted on 10/28/2005 11:28:19 AM PDT by Jenny Hatch (Go Iraq Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy; atomicweeder
After reading these indictments it is a "he-said she-said" argument with the MSM. This is going nowhere. This sounds more like a High School kid exposing that his friend was fooling around behind someone's back and he blabbed about something everyone knew about, but someone needed to get the blame.

Libby got too involved in the MSM scene and it burned him. To be honest we don't need people like this in Washington. I want the Administration to ignore the MSM.

105 posted on 10/28/2005 11:59:32 AM PDT by frogjerk (LIBERALISM - Being miserable for no good reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway

Free Scooter!


106 posted on 10/28/2005 12:01:21 PM PDT by anymouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Minus_The_Bear

You know, I've heard people like Andrew McCarthy speak of Fitzgerald as non-partisan, a tough, straight guy who brings solid cases, etc. It doesn't look like it today.

I have a theory: Let's say I've been a U.S. Attorney for a number of years, laboring on cases that have been respectable, my career advances nicely, but I'm not exactly ticketed for the top. Then one fine day, I get tabbed to lead the grand jury investigation of some guys who are so high up their in the firmament of power in Washington, that the whole country is boiling in anticipation of the outcome. The prosecutor who does not bring indictments will probably be cheered by the right, flamed by the left and the media for a while and then...nothing--he'll fade away like yesterdays' news.

Now, suppose, instead that he brings indictments of one or more of these really big fish: he might receive some scorn from the right, but he will be the champion, the scion, the very sword of justice and righteousness to the left, praised endlessly by every talking head, spin doc, etc. Not only that, but because indictments mean trials, our champion's name stays in the headlines for months, maybe years.

Which way would you go?


107 posted on 10/28/2005 12:29:45 PM PDT by JewishRighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

What do mean by classified Fritz?

Secret, Top Secret, For Official Use Only, Confidential, or Public Domain Information?

Hey Fritz was Plame on the NOC list Yes or NO?

You obfuscating political hack!

108 posted on 10/28/2005 5:36:55 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: demlosers

"Public Domain Information" = Unclassified


109 posted on 10/28/2005 5:42:22 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway

Fitzgerald- Indicting ham sandwiches one bite at a time since 2003.


110 posted on 10/28/2005 5:46:58 PM PDT by TADSLOS (Right Wing Infidel since 1954)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway

Fitzgerald HAD to figure out within a few hours (like everybody else did) that Plame was not "covert" according to the definition set out in the statute, and so therefore no crime was committed by revealing that she was an employee of the CIA and it was she who arranged for her husband's rogue, Kerry campaign operation in Niger.

So exactly WHAT was that scumbag Fitzgerald DOING for two years (at a cost of $ millions) besides hoping that somebody would trip himself up in the grand jury room? All those stories about what an honest, straight-shooting prosecutor Fitzgerald is turned out to be lies. The guy's nothing but a sleazy scumbag.

Congratulations, Fitz - - you destroyed somebody. Big whoop.


111 posted on 10/28/2005 5:56:10 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Fitzgerald belongs to the Dems.


112 posted on 10/28/2005 5:58:19 PM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: demlosers

"Classified" at the CIA simply means her work is classified - - it doesn't mean her employment at CIA is a secret. At his rock concert today, Fitzpatrick said that he was not addressing whether or not Plame was "covert", but then in the same breath he says that "her cover was blown". Not only is Fitz a political hack, he's as stupid as a brick.


113 posted on 10/28/2005 6:03:53 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

> What is this garbage all about. Did Fitzy do any homework? Ughhh!

I've been hearing about all the people who knew Plame's CIA status, etc., etc., and how her position wasn't classified, yada yada. I've been hearing it right here on FR, and so my jaw dropped when I heard him say these words at his press conference that you cited about her status being secret and not blown.

Seems to me, either we've been the victims of conservative propaganda, or else Fitz is a real dummy (which I doubt). So, rather than just repeating mantras about her being outed in advance of the "scandal", I'm waiting to see a bit more hard evidence to that effect. Otherwise, I'll just chalk it up to the fact that I've been had.


114 posted on 10/28/2005 6:06:03 PM PDT by XEHRpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mykpfsu

> Its basically Libby's word against Russert, Cooper and Miller.

Except that Libby had means and motive to out Plame. Let's not fall into complete denial. Accept that it is at least a possibility that Libby took a "bullet" for the administration by outing Plame and nailing that dirtball Wilson in his tracks.


115 posted on 10/28/2005 6:08:59 PM PDT by XEHRpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheSane

> I mean it's the same charge we got Clinton on.

And I really hate a double standard. If Libby obstructed, he should be charged. I believed it for Clinton, and I believe it for Libby. He'll get his day in court, and even if found guilty, many will owe him some gratitude for nailing the original Wilson/Plame scandal (not the outing of Plame, but the smearing of the President under the guise of an official CIA assignment).


116 posted on 10/28/2005 6:13:10 PM PDT by XEHRpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Julliardsux

I agree with your take on it. Fitz did not seem to me to act like what I would think of as a partisan hack (recall the 9/11 commission, for many fine examples of partisan hacks)


117 posted on 10/28/2005 6:16:25 PM PDT by XEHRpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Minus_The_Bear; Julliardsux

> Then does his paperwork claim Plame was covert and not know outside of intelligence circles? The guy is either a hack or a complete moron.

I've heard and believed these many months all those things too that you cite, but took them on the word of Freepers alone. Why would Fitz say and publish something that is so demonstably false to destroy his credibility? I'd say the burden is on those who claim Plame was public knowledge to post it on FR. Apparently, the conservative mantra was sort of like Libby's own testimony. I get miffed to find I've been the victim of talking points, be they liberal or conservative.

So, can you point me to any evidence other than hearsay that Plame was outed prior to Plamegate?


118 posted on 10/28/2005 6:22:59 PM PDT by XEHRpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: XEHRpa
I'd go with the Ollie North defense. It was the right thing to do.

More importantly, we haven't heard from the defense. I'd be shocked if a good defense attorney can't find someone outside the CIA who knew where Plame worked. Probably dozens. She was listed in Who's Who, and she worked at CIA headquarters.
119 posted on 10/28/2005 6:24:45 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple


FYI -- I haven't tried the links yet.
I think I've had my fill for today.


120 posted on 10/28/2005 6:26:46 PM PDT by onyx ((Vicksburg, MS) North is a direction. South is a way of life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138

> I'd go with the Ollie North defense. It was the right thing to do.

That's the way I'm seeing it. But such action still requires that justice be served on him. If he deceived the GJ, he should be held accountable. But even so I still thank him profusely, if he was the one who defused the Wilson-bomb.


121 posted on 10/28/2005 6:36:44 PM PDT by XEHRpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: XEHRpa

I'm thinking nullification, depending on the details. As I said, we haven't seen the defense.


122 posted on 10/28/2005 6:47:13 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
BFD.

Really! It's not like he had sex with a ho, man!

All this guy was lying about was a conspiracy to reveal classified information for political purposes. Just political espionage perpetrated against the People of the United States of America for petty, unimportant reasons with little consequence. A war -- big whoop. Not like it was some kind of BJ or something, I don't understand the big deal: there have been no allegations of peyronne's here.

Let's all ignore this hype.

123 posted on 10/28/2005 6:57:06 PM PDT by Yeti ("He might be drunk!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Thanks, onyx. I am with you. I will read this tomorrow morning when I haven't had two glasses of wine.


124 posted on 10/28/2005 7:03:05 PM PDT by Miss Marple (Lord, please look after Mozart Lover's son and keep him strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Dems_R_Losers; dirtboy
......Either Libby lied or Cooper and Russert lied.

Exactly my thought. I find no problem believing that 2 reporters would lie to cover their butts.

125 posted on 10/28/2005 7:14:28 PM PDT by GWfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple; onyx

I was able to watch the presser while on the phone with a former poster who is an expert on the matter, and even her comments haven't helped me figure it out.


126 posted on 10/28/2005 7:14:55 PM PDT by EllaMinnow (The Florida Police Benevolent Association proudly supports Charlie Crist for Governor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: demlosers; All

I want a reporter to go on TV right now and start a diatribe about how much money was spent on this pile of steaming BS.

Anyone have a running count of the money?? I would like it brought up every time the indictment is mentioned.

What a waste of MY tax dollars.


127 posted on 10/28/2005 7:17:33 PM PDT by GWfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
OK, Libby used "Valerie Wilson"

Who told Miller "F/Plame?"

And who told her "Victoria Wilson"?

128 posted on 10/28/2005 9:39:13 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jenny Hatch; Shermy
"that official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson's trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. Libby responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly"

This observation details the difficult situation that Libby was dealing with.

Wilson was double-dealing from behind the shield his wife's employment created for him.

The administration couldn't tell the truth about Wilson's lies without revealing Plame's employment.

There is something systemically wrong when CIA employees are allowed to act in extra-legal fashion with impunity -- not only in the U.S., but counter to the country's interests.

At the very least, this is NOT whistle-blowing -- but might be construed as a violation of the Hatch Act.

129 posted on 10/28/2005 10:02:33 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
Hey Fritz was Plame on the NOC list Yes or NO?

We're dealing with two different definitions of "covert".

The rule is "once a NOC, always a NOC".

Thus, by the CIA's internal operational standards, Plame was "covert" -- but inactive.

But the 1982 IIPA relies on a specific legal definition of "covert" -- and Plame did not meet that standard.

Since she was on the operational side of CIA, her employment would be accurately described as "classified".

130 posted on 10/28/2005 10:09:21 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: blogblogginaway

bttt


131 posted on 10/28/2005 10:11:48 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138

For starters, Andrea Mitchell knew all about Plame, long before the Novack column and she's said so, on T.V.!


132 posted on 10/28/2005 10:21:09 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: okie01
"Since she was on the operational side of CIA, her employment would be accurately described as "classified"."

OK, but "classified" as what? The term classified is ambiguous by itself. Information in governemnt is divided into classes or classifications.

As examples:
Top Secret
Secret
Confidential
For Official Use Only
Restricted
NOFORN(Not For Foreign Release)
Sensitive
Unclassified

I doubt her current/last job title at the CIA working as an analyst was classified as anything but Unclassified.

Plame may work with classified information above Unclassified, but that does not make the knowledge of her working at Langley a secret.

133 posted on 10/28/2005 10:58:24 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson