Fitzgerald is REQUIRED to find the underlying reasons for going to war.

[Kablooie]

If Fitzgerald fulfills his mandate as described at the press conference, and if the reasons we suspect are true, he MUST uncover the true underlying reasons for going to war. If he didn't he wouldn't be able to confidently answer all the questions he posed. Here are some of his quotes.

"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."

"This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth."

"I will not end the investigation until I can look anyone in the eye and tell them that we have carried out our responsibility sufficiently to be sure that we've done what we could to make intelligent decisions about when to end the investigation."

Here is the reasoning that must be followed in order to know if a crime has been committed or not:

Why did the leak occur?
To discredit some information that was being made public.

What information and why did it need to be kept from the public?
The false Niger report was used to instigate the war.

Why was a false report used to instigate the war?
The false report was the most convincing evidence they had to instigate the war.

Why did they need to instigate the war?
Because Saddam was developing nuclear weapons.

How did they know that?
Because of the Niger report. !? --- That they knew was false? --- Huh?

---

It hits a strange recursive spot here that doesn't add up.
Now whether a provable crime was committed is still to be decided but Fitzgerald must uncover the truth as to why this illogical logic occurs if he is to fulfill his mandate. The only way to do that will be to find another reason for going to war other than Saddam's nuclear weapons.

(Now if it turns out that Scooter outed Valerie because they broke up in an illicit affair, my theory falls apart.)

[Jim Sagle]

1. I think Fitz WILL have to END UP dealing with the war. He was merely

expressly a lack of interest in conducting a political investigation as opposed to a criminal one.

[janx]

2. Yes--and that's as it should be.

The crime was a very serious one, as he pointed out. It goes beyond partisan politics, even though it was used that way in this case.

[goforit]

3. Beg to differ, This isn't a political investigation, it is a crime

First came fraud then came mass murder for oil!!!

[Kablooie]

4. Yes, it's a criminal investigation.

but he will need to uncover the politics in order to be sure that any charges he brings are valid.

[EVDebs]

9. Please please please read post number 8

The Bush administration has been covering up for illegal activities since the Reagan administration regarding Iraq. Old habits die hard. They've been telling themselves they've acted legally for so long they all believe it by now.

Also see Alan Friedman's book Spider's Web and pay attention to the subtitle.

[glitch]

10. Yes - if it were solely a monetary crime he would have to follow the money

since it's a political crime he has to follow the politics, or at the least the political aspects of the crime. Goes to motive, your honor.

Any DUer that posts about recursion gets a hit from me!

[JDPriestly]

27. Courts do not decide political questions.

The Constitutional, civil and criminal issues and facts they look at may affect politics, but courts do not decide who is right or wrong from a political point of view. The court will view the issues raised in terms of the specific crimes charged. Did Mr. A or X or Y or Z commit certain acts that constitute a crime as defined by law, not why the Bush administration went into Iraq or whether the grounds to go to war were legitimate but whether a specific suspect or defendant lied to a federal agent and why did that person lie, whether a suspect or defendant improperly and illegally disclosed classified information. It's a subtle difference sometimes, but if you expect a court to determine, let's say, the real reason that the Bush administration invaded Iraq, I don't think that will happen. We may, however, gain insight about the real reasons Bush invaded Iraq from the facts that Fitzgerald uncovers and presents to the court to prove the specific crimes charged. That is as far as it will go. We will probably not get ultimate answers to the questions asked in this thread.

[glitch]

31. All we need are the facts. If Fitz exposes facts that have political

relevance I shall be quite pleased.
He doesn't have to interpret the politics for me.

[Jim Sagle]

13. That's what I wrote. How can you beg to differ when we agree?

[FreedomAngel82]

19. It does all tie together

His case and the reason's for war. It's all about WMD's and that was what Plame did.

[DearAbby]

5. exactly...Fitz would have to deal with the motive behind the crime

Why was it important to out/leak the name of a NOC Agent. He will have to deal with this in the context of the crime committed. Maybe this is why he had asked for and received the notes on the investigation of the Niger documents. I believe I had read this here on DU. That Fitz had requested this.

[Justice Is Comin]

6. Without a doubt..

Mr F keeps his cards in his underwear. He asked for expanded authority and got it. They are inexorably linked. You can't separate the reason for outing the agent without connecting it to their motivation. And that ipso fatso was the war.

[glitch]

11. Ipso Fatso - is that another name for Rove? Lol! nt

[The Doctor.]

25. Sounds correct...

That would mean that they didn't necessarily out Plame to 'discredit' Wilson... but to put the kai-bosh on info that BJ&A could bring to light.

Brewster Jennings and Associates tracked the sales of WsMD related equipment around the world and were in a position to furnish info that could cripple the case for war.
Joe Wilson's speaking up brought Administration, Intelligence, and Media attention to intel gathered by the BJ&A resource, and in doing so he forced the hand of the Administration to do something stupid and reckless... compromise the asset.

That's what the administration really wanted... the dissolution of BJ&A.

Wilson gambled that he could out the indisputable info and the administration would not go so far as to destroy BJ&A. But this administration had to flex its' muscle and prove that it would not allow such a slight. And any martialist or chess player knows that a threat is meaningless unless executed.

That means that the Administration may have gambled that Wilson would never go public with the info he had because he knew they might compromise that asset. But Joe was more savvy and understood that overt action by the administration could easily be turned against them...

But why?

Altruism?

(Ok... gotta go replace a gasket now.)

[many a good man]

7. To prosecute a case your main goal is to find the MOTIVE

Fixing the intelligence and manipulating the media were two tools. The motive was misleading this country into war. I don't think Fitz needs to go beyond there.

There is a constellation of motives that came together and wished this war into existence.

[EVDebs]

8. On Bullshit, by Prof. Frankfurt describes institutional BS

with lies, through bureaucratic repetition, becoming "facts" that get quouted by the media and then attain their own positions of sacred cows. We have that happening right before our very eyes with the Fitzgerald investigation.

A limited testimony deal has been reached with Judith Miller. It is my suspicion that she is an asset of the CIA's Operation Mockingbird, an illegal domestic media-manipulation project (see

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

and for illegality of domestic operations see

www.serendipity.li/cia/lyon.html , as it pertained to the equally illegal Operation Chaos the CIA also had going).

If the Fitzgerald investigation is told that Operation Mockingbird and Judith Miller were acting legally through their dissemination of BS, then the CIA has effectively sheilded itself and 'thrown sand in the umpire's eyes' as Fitzgerald himself put it.

Furthermore, the truthful 'situations' and 'circumstances' that the War Powers Act of 1973 required will have been ruled out as an avenue for investigation by Fitzgerald, the very heart of WHY Valerie Plame's name was brought up in the first place. Can you imagine a more inept charade of an investigation if it leaves out these two very important details ? I cannot in good conscience...but maybe Fitzgerald will try to.

My gut tells me that he wants to do the right thing, but if he doesn't have the grey matter to see when he's being mislead by the CIA or Bush's wing of the CIA then we put our trust in the wrong man.

[Hubert Flottz]

15. Office of Strategic Influence

The Office of Strategic Influence, or OSI, was a department set up in the United States Department of Defense in late 2001 or early 2002, to support the War on Terrorism through psychological operations in targeted countries. The closure of the office was announced by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld soon after its existence became publicly known.

The OSI would have been a center for the creation of propaganda materials, for the stated purpose of misleading enemy forces or their civilian populations. After information on the office spread through US and foreign media in mid February 2002, intense discussions on purpose and scope of the office were reported. The discussions culminated in a public statement by Rumsfeld in late February that the office has been closed down.

Some argue that due to its nature and stated purpose, the (non-)existence of such an agency would be hard to determine. In fact, in November 2002, Rumsfeld stated in an interview that only the name of the office was abolished, that it further exists and that it fulfills its original purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Strategic_Influence

Did they really disband this SECRET effort

****************

Office of Strategic Influence

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Office_of_Strategic_Influence

****************

The Office of Strategic Influence Is Gone, But Are Its Programs In Place?

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1859

Ask Judas Miller

ARE WE THE PUBLIC, WHO SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE BOGUS WAR, THE ENEMY THAT RUMMY WAS SPEAKING OF?....and no my cap lock is not stuck...

[EVDebs]

16. Indeed. It makes you wonder what CNN and PsyOps was about

back in 2000 (2004 ?)

CNN and PsyOps
www.counterpunch.org/cnnpsyops.html

domestic operations and clandestine propaganda...for what ?

But, again I must ask, will Fitzgerald & co. deliberately blow an investigation into the fabricated pretext for war, even when you say he must investigate ? The pressure being put on him with even more lies and obfuscations must be immense. I'd like to think he's up to it but these guys don't sound like they read DemocracyNow! or counterpunch.org ya know what I mean ? It would be soooo easy for some intell brass to come down and meet with them and say 'don't go there'.

[carolinalady]

12. What is the interpretation of this (from the press conference)

snip>

QUESTION: A lot of Americans, people who are opposed to the war, critics of the administration, have looked to your investigation with hope in some ways and might see this indictment as a vindication of their argument that the administration took the country to war on false premises.


Does this indictment do that?


FITZGERALD: This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.


This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer's identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person -- a person, Mr. Libby -- lied or not.


The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.


And I think anyone's who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.

FITZGERALD: They will be frustrated and, frankly, it would just -- it wouldn't be good for the process and the fairness of a trial.


QUESTION: Have you sought any expansion of your authority since February of 2004?


FITZGERALD: No.


I do know there was a letter, and I haven't looked back. There was a clarified letter...


QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)


FITZGERALD: Yes. I think there were two letters in early 2004, and that's it. There's nothing changed since then.


QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) further issues that you want to look into or anything like that?


FITZGERALD: I'm not looking to expand my authority or mandate and haven't -- I think the second letter is a clarification of the first. Nothing has changed since February 2004 at all.

[mucifer]

14. yes that's how I remember it. He's not going after them for starting the

war on false pretenses. I'm not suprised. I was more suprised that he brought it up at all and did seem to verify that it was possible that this happened and implying that we are not a bunch of wingnuts.

[Kablooie]

17. Absolutely. He's not about to bring charges relating to the war ...

but in order to bring charges on the outing of the agent he will have to reveal the reasons for the war.

If those reasons are criminal in some form, Fitzgerald may not have the mandate to charge them. But if he only brings criminal activities to light, Congress will be obligated to follow up with a criminal investigation of the newly exposed crimes.

Either way, the root crime is exposed and brought to justice.

[EVDebs]

22. You trust a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS to follow up ? You need help.

[Kablooie]

29. Ah, but by that time it might not be Repug anymore.

[EVDebs]

18. Fitzgerald has the POWER to dig deeper. Does he have the WILL ?

""The letters from Acting Attorney General James B. Comey appointing Mr. Fitzgerald delegated to him "all the authority of the attorney general" to investigate and prosecute "violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure.""

and also,

""Did top administration officials violate the War Powers Act? The law requires the president to present to Congress the basis for proposed U.S. military action. If the administration provided false information, is it guilty of violating the War Powers Act and, in effect, usurping the war powers given to Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution?"" -- according to truthout.org ,

Prosecutor Should Dig Deeper
by Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith
The Baltimore Sun
Sunday 30 October 2005
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/103005B.shtml

So, we know Fitzgerald and Co. have the POWER to dig deeper. But does he have the balls to DO it ?

We know that illegal CIA domestic propaganda and media manipulation took place in order for the pretexts for war in Iraq, the lies to Congress in violation of the War Powers Act of 1973, and ensuing Congressional War resolution to be enacted. The 'situations' and 'circumstances' mentioned in the War Powers Act of 1973 are fabrications via phony WMD intelligence.

The media had to provide the "slam dunk" fig leaf. How, exactly if not through Operation Mockingbird domestic propaganda, was this accomplished ? Why was a special testimony deal reached with Judith Miller if not to rule out a truthful look into this aspect of the rationale for war in Iraq ? This is the key to WHY Valerie Plame's name came up in the first place.

The American people have a right to know:

[Kablooie]

20. But we will only know if Fitz has legal evidence to support the charges.

If he knows about the crime but feels he can't prove it, we won't hear about it.

[EVDebs]

21. In other words NO BALLS AT ALL

If he knows about the crime ! !!@@#@$#%^%&^% 2000 + are dead because of it and you're telling me the Perpe-Traitors get off on a technicality ?

You said "If those reasons are criminal in some form, Fitzgerald may not have the mandate to charge them. But if he only brings criminal activities to light, Congress will be obligated to follow up with a criminal investigation of the newly exposed crimes." The mandate Fitzgerald got from the acting Attny Gen was for ALL CRIMES, "any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure." Outing a CIA undercover agent in order to prevent the public knowledge that the rationale for war was faked. That's something Fitzgerald CAN investigate and bring criminal charges on per his mandate.

So it's o.k. to violate the Constitution at will if you know the right people ? If the man lacks balls he will prove it by NOT investigating the violations mentioned in the Baltimore Sun article I refered to in my prior post.

We won't HEAR about it. We'll just KNOW that he's letting them get away scot free. Not even Al Capone was able to pull that off.

[Kablooie]

23. I don't think you quite get Fitzgerald...

if he does anything outside official laws, he may lose his case as a result and the criminals will get away scott free.

So he is scrupulously following the written law so that there is no chance of the defense lawyers getting their clients out on a technicality.

This is the absolutely best way to go about this. We have a system, and he using it to the letter.

[EVDebs]

24. Au contrere, I get him quite accurately. He has the POWER

but won't use it:

"""The letters from Acting Attorney General James B. Comey appointing Mr. Fitzgerald delegated to him "all the authority of the attorney general" to investigate and prosecute "violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure.""

and

""If the special prosecutor found evidence of violation of "any criminal laws," he is obliged to investigate and prosecute. Where the abuses he finds are not covered by existing federal law, they must be addressed by Congress, either by new laws or through the impeachment process.""

All those laws listed in the Baltimore Sun article are directly related to this case. They are already the law of the land. When he preemptively said he would not go near the causes of the war he gutted the heart of the case. Special emphasis on his NOT WILLING to go near the war-cause issue.

From post #12 above and from Fitgerald's own mouth:

"The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.

And I think anyone's who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that."

QED. We're going to have to demand another Special Prosecutor who will delve into the matters that Fitzgerald refuses to touch upon such as those listed in that Baltimore Sun article.

[EuroObserver]

34. Worth quoting more from the Baltimore Sun piece:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/103005B.shtml

<snip>

The letters from Acting Attorney General James B. Comey appointing Mr. Fitzgerald delegated to him "all the authority of the attorney general" to investigate and prosecute "violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure."

We would argue that Mr. Comey's charge, based on the evidence Mr. Fitzgerald has uncovered, authorizes the special prosecutor to investigate the following:

Did top Bush administration officials deceive Congress? Several federal statutes make it a crime to lie to Congress. As Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York recently put it, "If, as mounting evidence is tending to show, administration officials deliberately deceived Congress and the American people, this would constitute a criminal conspiracy against the entire country."

Did top administration officials violate the U.S. Anti-Torture Act? The law makes torture and conspiracy to commit torture a crime. The former commander at Abu Ghraib prison, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, has stated that abusive techniques were "delivered with full authority and knowledge of the secretary of defense and probably Cheney."

Did top administration officials violate the War Crimes Act? Passed by a Republican Congress in 1996, the law makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national to commit a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions.

In a 2002 memo, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who was then White House counsel, urged that the United States "opt out" of the Geneva Conventions for the Afghan war on the grounds that opting out "substantially reduces the likelihood of prosecution under the War Crimes Act."

What was he worrying about? Did the special prosecutor find evidence that top Bush administration officials ordered or condoned the string of Geneva Conventions violations that run from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo Bay and from the leveling of Fallujah to attacks on medical facilities?

Did top administration officials violate the War Powers Act? The law requires the president to present to Congress the basis for proposed U.S. military action. If the administration provided false information, is it guilty of violating the War Powers Act and, in effect, usurping the war powers given to Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution?

Did top administration officials violate the U.N. Charter? U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said the U.S. attack on Iraq was "illegal." The conduct of the war has involved many breaches of internationally guaranteed protections of civilians. Did the special prosecutor find evidence of deliberate violation of U.S. treaty obligations, which under Article VI of the Constitution are the law of the land?

If the special prosecutor found evidence of violation of "any criminal laws," he is obliged to investigate and prosecute. Where the abuses he finds are not covered by existing federal law, they must be addressed by Congress, either by new laws or through the impeachment process.

The Bush administration's alleged abuses of national and international law are closely linked. The Valerie Plame affair was not just a random incident, but rather an effort to silence critics attempting to halt an aggressive war whose initiation and conduct appear to have violated both national and international law. Indeed, aggressive war, illegal conduct of war and torture are nothing less than war crimes.

</snip>

Brendan Smith, a legal scholar, and Jeremy Brecher, a historian, are editors of In the Name of Democracy: American War Crimes in Iraq and Beyond.

[EVDebs]

35. So he has the authority but chooses not to use it. No balls at all.

[sunnystarr]

26. If you read Fitzgerald's press conference quoted above

you'll see that he constantly and consistently answered questions by saying he not responding to anything outside the four corners of the indictment. He would not address anything outside of the indictment. He made sure to preface his responses with that type of phrasing.

The indictment was limited to the elements it contained. So with charging 2 counts of false statements, 2 counts of perjury, and one count of obstruction of justice those are the ONLY things he was addressing.

His investigation is ongoing. He's looking for indictable evidence that would confirm the motive. Since Libby and Rove didn't tell the truth he has to squeeze someone to give up the motive. He needs that element to make charges on the applicable section of the law. While he, along with the rest of us, know what the motive is, he has to prove it in a court of law.

The war comes into play once he can prove the conspiracy and charge the crime.

None of these things were contained in the indictment so he couldn't answer questions pertaining to them. So yes, the indictment was narrow in scope and limited his replies.

Have faith in Fitz. He knows what he's doing. If anyone can prove it, it will be him.

[pberq]

28. Yes, sunny

That's the way I saw it.

When he said that he was going near the war, that is just for now; just for this particular news conference, whcih only was about the Libby indictment.

[Kablooie]

30. I'm convinced that he hasn't brought up further charges ...

because he feels his case will be strengthened by taking a little more time. He's not going to go into this half cocked.

We can't say what he will or will not do yet. He isn't done.

I'll bet once he has every single piece in place, he will make a move and it could be a big one.

[Catchawave]

32. Shouldn't Congress be more outraged

than we (DU) are? There is no friggin' way Libby is the "Rainman" of the Bush Administration, which is how I'm interpreting the RW spin this weekend. "Ooopsies", and all that sh*t ? The Buck stops Where?

[chimppyhater]

33. The problem is

the difference between knowing the truth and being able to prove it.

[GayCanuck]

36. This

will never happen; your man Fitz there looks like he is a stickler for the letter of the law; I mean I was very disappointed that there was no charges for outing a covert agent, but after reading the indictment and the transcript of Fitz's press conference he stuck to what he could only indict based upon the facts. His investigation will never go beyond what Libby and possibly Cheney & Rove might have done. The other thing is that I am guessing that your war hawking DINOs,as you call them; Hillary, Lieberman, etc.. want no part of an investigation looking into the reasons for going to war, given that they viewed the same intelligence as your "president*"


Secondly, I have never supported the idea for a covert agency for any government in the first place. We don't need spies and spooks, what this world needs is diplomacy. Spies = lies.