Saturday, July 16, 2005

Weekend Reading...

If you haven't seen it yet read Seymour Hersh's 2003 article on the yellow cake issue.

Also check out this piece by Dan Shor on the yellow cake issue in the Christian Science Monitor. Shor concludes, as I do, that "The role of Rove and associates added up to a small incident in a very large scandal - the effort to delude America into thinking it faced a threat dire enough to justify a war."

See what conclusions you draw.


  1. I think Shor is most likely correct. But I don't think Fitzgerald is going to come up with much more in the way of proof than what is already out there. I mean, the fact of the leak in Novak's column is already known, Wilson's report is known, the evidence of forged documents and other bits of the yellow-cake uranium scandal are known (see Senate Intelligence Committee report). Fitzgerald isn't going to be able to say a whole lot more about the lead up to Iraq than what we already know. So when it is all said and done, I'm not sure he'll accomplish anything unless he can get enough evidence on someone (Rove or other admin official) to bring criminal charges for the leak. He's not going to change minds on Iraq. Everyone already knows about the problems with the intelligence the admin was using. Supporters of the admin don't seem to care and I have doubts that anything Fitzgerald says will make them care.

  2. Yet I come back to the perspective that he and the judges wouldn't have gone this far if they didn't see something big at the end of the tunnel.

    We shall see.


  3. Maybe, Jeff. I can tell you about federal prosecutors, though. I know a few. Fitzgerald has a mandate to investigate a certain thing. He's not going to stop until he feels he's investigated all possible avenues. That's what he is supposed to do. That doesn't mean he sees something big at the end of the tunnel (or that he doesn't, for that matter), he's doing his job diligently. If he's a good prosecutor, he'll continue to do it even if he doesn't see anything big at the end. He's there to get answers, not to go after people politically, and from what I know of him he'll do it. If it means nailing high-level Bush people, he'll do that; if it means coming out at the end and saying there's nothing there, he'll do that too.

    Here's a prediction for you. If he nails some high level Bush people, GOPers will question his motives. If he comes out and says, at the end of the day, people who dislike the admin will come out and question his motives (you more or less said previously that you'd be suspicious).

    How ridiculous is our system when we've got a bunch of people on both sides (none of which know all the facts) who have already decided that if the investigation doesn't come out the way they want, then Fitzgerald's dishonest. Absolutely amazing.