Thursday, February 08, 2007

Proof that the White House lied about WMDs?

I don't want to get too excited about this, but Patrick Fitzgerald, the (very clever and very aggressive) prosecutor in the Scooter Libby perjury case seems to smell something bigger, and Sully thinks he might know what it is:

"Cheney was scared - so scared he took a huge risk that eventually led to the loss and public humiliation of his most trusted aide, Scooter Libby. But why would he be scared? The most plausible inference is that he knew he had deliberately rigged the WMD evidence to ensure that the war took place. He knew, even if the president was blithely convinced otherwise, that the WMD evidence was weak, and his success in distorting the evidence was threatened by Wilson. Not that Wilson had all the goods - Cheney must have known this was a minor matter. It was the danger that journalists or skeptics pulling on the thread that Wilson represented could get closer to the much bigger truth of WMD deception. This is a huge deal for one single reason: if true, it means that the White House acted in bad faith in making the case for war. There is no graver charge than that. In fact, if true, it's impeachable. I don't want to believe it. But I find it increasingly plausible that this is what Patrick Fitzgerald smells in the Libby case. He can't prove it yet; he may never prove it. But he's getting warmer; and he won't give up."

If Fitzgerald somehow pulls off a miracle and finds substantial evidence - or better yet, proof - that Cheney and his cronies rigged the WMD evidence to serve their own neo-conservative/war profiteering ends, then what we on the left of the spectrum have long-suspected is the case will finally be vindicated, and the Bush/Cheney presidency will be sure to be remembered for what it really was - criminal.

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

At 2/08/2007 3:10 PM, Blogger EX-NDIP said...

Scotter Libby's trial is about perjury . . . him not remembering what he said to who.
Your WMD lies stuff was a figment of the left's imagination. It has been often repeated, but lacks substance . . . I will post many comments by Clinton, Gore, Albright, killer Kennedy and Kerry who said exactly the same thing Bush said. Lib memories are short, but their imaginations are out of control.

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens in there matters a great deal here. For the risk of the leaders of a rogue state such as Iraq to use nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons againstus or our allies is the greatest threat we face. And, it is a threat we must and will stand firm."
Madeline Albright, 2/18, 1998
"He (Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of WMD and some day, some how, I am certain he will use that arsenal again as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, 2/18/1998
"I can support the president. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because it's in the long term interest of our national security."
Hillary Clinton, 9/15/2002
"We know Saddam continues to gain access to additional capability including nuclear capability. There is a real debate to the matter of how far off that is, whether it's a matter of years or a matter of less than that. So there's much we don't know."
Joe Biden, 11/4/2002
"Saddam Hussein in effect has thumbed his nose at the world community and I think the president has approached this in the right fashion."
Harry Reid, 9/18/2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East."—John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002.
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."—Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998.
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."—Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."—John F. Kerry, Oct 2002.

They all read the same CIA stuff (from Clinton's CIA) and were all on the same page . . . you are just not well informed!!!

 
At 2/08/2007 6:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ExNDIP can quote all he wants, but the fact that the report probably had been "tampered" is the issue.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home