As I recall, the forgery was of laughably poor quality, supposedly with the signature of a long-dead official.  This, it would seem, lends it an element of plausible deniability, where an outfit within our government could argue the "bad apple overseas because our forgery would have been better" defense.  As for a foreign government planting it, this seems unlikely without WH/OSP  involvement.  A "Joe Schmoe somewhere in the world" would most likely be Chalabi, also with WH/OSP involvement.  I think the FBI attitude is because all forgery roads lead to the WH.  It would interesting to see if Rocco Martino could be asked to testify in front of the GJ, and if copies of the forgery could be examined by the Fitz team.

Posted at July 28, 2005 8:47 AM in response to Niger Forgeries Never Investigated

The most crucial difference with Watergate is the crime being covered up.  TraitorGate is about a criminal war and war crimes, about the unimaginable loss of blood and treasure, and about the loss of goodwill from the rest of the world.  As Ikmann says, the republic truly is in great danger, and this feels like the last chance to stop the traitors.  

Posted at July 27, 2005 10:57 PM in response to Hastert to Can Patrick Fitzgerald?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

Does Hastert's memory not extend back to the Saturday Night Massacre of October 20, 1973?

Rich, when you are busy creating reality, memories are not necessary.  

Posted at July 27, 2005 9:40 PM in response to Hastert to Can Patrick Fitzgerald?

My instinct is they will pull a pure power play in this matter, with Roberts holding hearings & giving the perps Iran-Contra-style "immunity". To smear Fitzgerald is to affect public opinion, which would have little effect on a tough prosecutor, especially one of his apparent steel. Of course, there is always the Wellstone option, but it still leaves the evidence in the hands of his deputies. No, I think the legal course has to be run, so a "legal" countermove would be the best course for the traitors. However, the problem for Roberts, it seems, is who will be indicted, & the net seems to be very wide. The forces we see martialing indicate to me Cheney & Bush himself may be the ultimate targets of the investigation.

Posted at July 27, 2005 9:23 PM in response to Hastert to Can Patrick Fitzgerald?

Perhaps Rove is protecting Bush. There is evidence Bush will gladly engage in petty personal attacks(no links).
(1)The open-mic "asshole" comment to Cheney about the reporter during the 2000 campaign.
(2)The professor from Yale commenting on his tendency to start rumor campaigns against anyone who embarrassed him in class.
(3)The story regarding his immersion into the details of the personal attacks on JK.

Probably wishful thinking, but this might help explain the time span of this investigation & the lack of information.

Posted at July 5, 2005 8:02 AM in response to A-Roving We Shall Go

dwbh brings up an interesting point re the Bush/Republican mindset. His comment was a cop-out, but not so strange in that Bush would like to bash the hell out of Felt for disloyalty, but chooses to cop-out instead due to awareness of the deep feelings Watergate stirs. If Bush thought Felt was a hero, the talking heads would have been "fair and balanced". Loyalty trumps everything, including the Constitution, and it is the bond which has made the Republicans kind of like the Borg; a monolithic force assimilating everything. It also makes it exceedingly difficult to get to the bottom of any story.

Posted at June 2, 2005 7:05 AM in response to Fair and Balanced?

When a government is driven by idealogy, it seems to me anonymous sourcing becomes essential for any hope at truth. For this White House, the ends justify the means. The means are lies, pure and simple, and better funded lies than we have ever seen. When an individual or group questions the party line, they are moved into the echo chamber crosshairs, and excoriated by limbaugh, krauthammer, hannity and the other snarling dogs. When Dan Rather, perhaps the most powerful journalist in America, runs with a TRUE story harmful to bush, he ends up resigning. Perhaps my tinfoil hat needs adjusting, but this looked liked a warning shot across the bow of the fourth estate. When Josh got the forged Niger document pot a boiling', the White House outs Plame and sicks the dogs on Joe Wilson. Newsweek runs a story which would be hard to believe was NOT true, & the dogs hold them responsible for the war going so badly. And now Mark Felt, at age 91, is trying to shake the dogs off his leg.
It would be great, as Clinton keeps repeating, if we could look at POLICIES and the results of those policies, instead of dissecting the people behind them. However, that is not the Rove way, & he sets the rules. The first rule is there are no rules for keeping power, which means you and your family will be targets; and this includes journalists. Perhaps, up against the Mayberry Machiavellians, journalists need to learn some ball-faking and open-field scrambling.

Posted at June 1, 2005 10:29 PM in response to Fair and Balanced?