Let’s see if the good People of America
can convince the Congress
to compell him to go after ALL those
who led to the outing of
Ms Plame.

The President did not order that just one leaker be found or that just the first leaker be identified, all leakers were to be fired. In addition they were to be prosecuted if there was sufficient evidence of guilt. Fitzgerald’s official orders in writing (see in full below from Justice Department web posting) by the Justice Department were to lead an “investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee’s identity” Fitzgerald’s authority “is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure (note not ‘crime‘), as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your (Fitzgerald’s) investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General’s authority to impose or pursue.”
(See the Commission of and instructions to special Council Fitzgerald by Deputy Attorney General below)

Prosecution was only one of the goals of the “Special Council”, the first was to find who made “unauthorized” disclosure .

The President has only removed one White House leaker so far.

During this time Mr. Fitzgerald has been the Chief U.S.
Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, The U.S. Attorney in charge of all terrorist case in the United States as well as the Special prosecutor in the Plame case. He has successfully convicted two terrorists of charges he brought against them in February, 2007, sent the former Republican Governor of Illinois to prison and prosecuted
Democratic political appointed employees of the City of Chicago for giving engineering and inspector jobs for patronage reasons in violation of civil service law.
TWO LETTERS: LETTER OF APPOINTMENT
AND LETTER OF DUTIES

1. LETTER OF APPOINTMENT

Office of the Deputy Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530
December 30, 2003
The Honorable Patrick J. Fitzgerald United States Attorney 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Patrick,
By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U. S .C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department’s investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee’s identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.
/s/ James B. Comey James B. Comey Acting Attorney General
2. LETTER OF DUTIES
Office of the Deputy Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530
February 6, 2004
The Honorable Patrick J. Fitzgerald United States Attorney Northern District of Illinois 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Patrick:
At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of “all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department’s investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee’s identity” is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General’s authority to impose or pursue. Further, my conferral on you of the title of “Special Counsel” in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.
Sincerely,
/s/ James B. Comey James B. Comey Acting Attorney General

“Yes. I even showed you a news article which said exactly that, didn’t I?”

Actually, I was the one who produced the news articles (BBC and Reuters) that showed the five permanent members received the full unredacted document. You sent an earlier article saying that Blix wanted to redact it for everyone.

“but the core assertion, that congress has never been fully apprised of the unredacted document, has never been disproven.”

But that is not how it works. If a person makes an assertion, it is that person’s responsibility to back up that assertion. You haven’t done that. I am impressed, however, that you called your congressman. Shows real commitment on your part.

“stating that I said Congress voted on the AUMF after Iraq released the dossier”

In your initial response to Dale, you certainly seemed to be implying that the dossier was released prior to the congressional vote on the AUMF. But, I will take you at your word that that is not what you meant and I won’t raise the point again.

In fact, I’d say this whole topic has been exhausted. Let’s move on to our next (inevitable) disagreement.

Yes. I even showed you a news article which said exactly that, didn’t I? Do you acknowledge that you attempted to lie, by falsely stating that I said Congress voted on the AUMF after Iraq released the dossier, even after I repeatedly pointed out your falsehood? But you still haven’t proven me wrong on this, as I hope you can now see. Going from memory, I was wrong about the number of pages in the report, but the core assertion, that congress has never been fully apprised of the unredacted document, has never been disproven. I’ve written my congressman and senators about this, but just get back the perfunctory “we appreciate your input” bullshit. Regardless, the core assertion still stands unscathed.

Do you now acknowledge that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council had access to the full, uncensored 12,000 page Iraqi dossier?

The Bush administration withheld other information from congress subsequent to the start of the war; what makes you think they shared all this info beforehand? We both know how politically explosive that information is for certain American companies. And if info was withheld from congress committee democrats, it doesn’t count as anything but a CYA strategy for the White house if they did release it all, but only republicans saw it.

And from that, you inferred that congress had, in fact, seen the documents?

Lets all play the inference game: I can infer from your constant revisiting of this issue, that it is a grey area that you don’t really know a lot about, because there isn’t a lot of information available, and that it troubles you enough to try to debink me. I can also infer that knowing how you like to style yourelf as well-informed, in the weeks that have passed, you’ve also been looking for conclusive information, but to prove me wrong. Since you haven’t produced such evidence, I can infer that you realize you’ve overstepped the available information, and are now desperate to deflect from that fact. To do this, you construct weak strawmen, like this: As for your mistaken contention that Congress voted on the AUMF after Iraq released the dossier, when in fact, Congress voted two months before the release of the dossier, and think no one will notice that those weren’t my words, but in fact yours. And now that i’ve conclusively show how intellectually corrupt you are, you suddenly just want to get along . . .

Just admit you were wrong, Barfly, and we can all get along with our lives.

Comment by Exley

You admit to trying that laughable strawman tactic, and we’ll see.

Read the subsequent Reuters and BBC article again, Barfly. Blix did NOT edit anything out of the dossier that went to the five permanent members of the Security Council.

“it wanted the same uncensored 12,000-page version the five permanent Security Council members had received, after getting only about 3,500 pages … “

“The council’s five permanent members — the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France — obtained the full document more than a week ago.”

Only the non-permanent members of the Security Council received the redacted version.

Even the article you sent says that the U.S. wanted all of the permanent members to see the full document. They didn’t accept Blix’s proposal and it was later changed so that the US, UK, Russia, China, and France got the full document.

Just admit you were wrong, Barfly, and we can all get along with our lives.

That is your strawman. Here’s my post. Please highlight the exact words that show I asserted “that Congress voted on the AUMF after Iraq released the dossier,

Barfly’s post: “At the beginning of the war, Saddam gave the US a fourteen thousand page document listing all the weapons he had, and where he procured them from. When the Bush administration turned the document over to the UN, ten thousand pages of information had been redacted. Congress has never seen what’s contained in those redacted pages.”)

You can’t because I never said it. I said nothing about congress voting before having seen the documents, you inferred it. That’s your weak strawman. A truly shabby intellect, indeed.

Now you send an article that indicates that the U.N.’s own Hans Blix was the one who wanted to give a redacted copy to the UNSC, not the United States. You have contradicted yourself.

Boy you’re being willfully ignorant.

If Blix edited stuff out , how did congress ever see it? I haven’t contradicted myself, merely clarified the actual situation, in regards to the weapons declaration’s redacted parts. You haven’t debunked the basic assertion: that congress has yet to see the unredacted version. Poor boy.

“The council’s five permanent members — the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France — obtained the full document more than a week ago.”

Syria to Boycott UN Meeting on
Iraqi Arms Dossier
Reuters
December 19, 2002

I can’t even give you a “nice try” here, because this is a truly pathetic effort on your part for a myriad of reasons:

Mistake #1) You initially claimed back on Feb. 16 that the United States had redacted the dossier before giving it to “the U.N.” (Barfly’s post: “At the beginning of the war, Saddam gave the US a fourteen thousand page document listing all the weapons he had, and where he procured them from. When the Bush administration turned the document over to the UN, ten thousand pages of information had been redacted. Congress has never seen what’s contained in those redacted pages.”)

(Let us set aside the fact that you were wrong about when Iraq turned over the dossier It was in December 2002. The war did not begin until March 2003).

Now you send an article that indicates that the U.N.’s own Hans Blix was the one who wanted to give a redacted copy to the UNSC, not the United States. You have contradicted yourself.

Mistake #2) You ignore the fact that Blix’s decision was changed and that in fact the five permanent members of the UN Security Council did, in fact, receive the full 12,000 dossier:

Syria to Boycott UN Meeting on
Iraqi Arms Dossier
Reuters
December 19, 2002

Syria said on Thursday it had instructed its representatives at the United Nations in New York to boycott Security Council talks on Iraq’s arms declaration in protest against receiving an excised copy of the text.

“The foreign ministry asked its permanent delegation in New York not to participate in the Security Council discussion regarding the Iraqi declaration on weapons of mass destruction after Syria returned yesterday the abridged copy,” the official SANA news agency said.

Syria sent an excised copy of Iraq’s arms declaration back to U.N. inspection commissions on Wednesday, saying it wanted the same uncensored 12,000-page version the five permanent Security Council members had received, after getting only about 3,500 pages …

The council’s five permanent members — the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France — obtained the full document more than a week ago.”

See also:

Tensions at UN over Iraq dossier
BBC
December 17, 2002

The 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council are to receive edited versions of the Iraqi weapons dossier on Tuesday amid US scepticism about Baghdad’s declaration. The United States and Britain have signalled that they are ready for war if Iraq is found to be in “material breach” of the tough new UN Security Council resolution adopted on 8 November. The other permanent members – China, France and Russia – are now studying the document. They received uncensored copies of the dossier, but the non-permanent members will receive only edited versions - minus sensitive information that could be used to develop weapons of mass destruction.”

So, once again, Barfly, you were wrong when you claimed the U.S. redacted the dossier so that “the UN” never saw the complete dossier. As we see, the five permanent members of the Security Council saw the full, 12,000 page document and that it was Hans Blix who wanted to give a redacted version.

Mistake #3) Still, no where do you provide a shred of evidence that the Congress did not have access to the full 12,000 page dossier. You have been asked numerous times by me and others to provide such evidence and yet three weeks later you have provided nothing. Just admit you were wrong, Barfly….Your continued refusal to acknowledge the facts in the face of all the evidence is almost painful to watch.

As for your mistaken contention that Congress voted on the AUMF after Iraq released the dossier, when in fact, Congress voted two months before the release of the dossier, that blunder of yours has been thoroughly documented on the Feb. 16 thread.

So, in closing, again I wish I could say “nice try.” But you have only managed to embarass yourself further.

Hey, Barfly, ever come up with any evidence to support your now discredited claim that Congress did not have access to the full 12,000 page Iraq weapons dossier? No…I guess you don’t. That was another in a long series of embarassing misstatements on your part….

Like when you claimed that Congress voted on the AUMF after Iraq released the dossier, when in reality Congress voted two months BEFORE the release of the dossier….Heh!

Then, of course, there was your humiliation when you mistakenly claimed that no one at UN did saw the full Iraq dossier, when, in fact, it was shown that the five permanent members of the Security Council did indeed have access to the full 12,000 page dossier.

There are so many others, Barfly. Those were just your most recent blunders.

Comment by Exley

What part of I will let them speak for themselves: don’t you comprehend? Trying to create weak strawmen, like “You seem to be under the misunderstanding, Barfly, that Libby was convicted of “outing” Plame or violating the IIPA. That is incorrect. is all you know how to do, isn’t it? A truly shabby intellect. But I absolutely loved the part where you were hoist by your own filty petard:

I believe I also went on to say that it was possible that the Armitage revelation dealth a “near-fatal” blow to the Libby prosecution. Not near enough, it seems.

I can take my lumps. Even though I never said the Armitage revelation was “fatal” (I used the qualifuer), it is now clear it had pretty much zero impact on the Libby prosecution. I got it wrong.

That makes it 0-11now, doesn’t it?

Ha, ha, ha, ha . . .

Exley, you’re the biggest nitwit on the net!

You always get it wrong Ex-Lie, you’re just too st*pid and cowardly to typically admit it. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to fixing the problem. You’re wrong alright – please look at the rest of your st*pid comments. That one is just the tip of the glacier!