Thursday, January 18, 2007

Did Fitz really take a dive on bin Laden?

We get email:
a question I would like you to ask of readers

In general I am very skeptical of Wayne Madsen, but I think we need to ask a second opinion on this from from him yesterday:
"The belief by legal experts is that Fitzgerald, already shown to have covered up critical evidence in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that would have implicated Osama Bin Laden, who, at the time, was still under the operational control of the CIA and Britain's MI-6, has taken a dive for the Bush administration. The Democratic Congress should begin the process to restore the position of Independent Counsel to prevent future GOP political hacks like Fitzgerald from upending prosecutorial integrity."
It appears to me that Madsen is a follower of the former east european governments, or of some stalinist faction, and that some of his claims are disinformation. But the rule of thumb is that you need to wrap 90% fact around your 10% disinfo. Did Fitz really take a dive on bin Laden?
Anyone? Noise?

FWIW, the other day, Sara (she's smart) at TNH wrote :
"By the way, I am in the midst of Peter Lance's book (on which the awful ABC Miniseries was based) "Triple Cross" -- which is highly critical of Fitzgerald's earlier prosecutions in New York of the WTC 1993 bombers, the embassy bombing and all. I haven't yet gone through and evaluated all the points, but superficially it is quite a slime job, contending that Fitzgerald's failure to expand his targets was partially responsible for the failure to nix 9/11 before it happened.
I think Peter Lance is bought and paid for by someone -- and that is why figuring out the structure of his Fitzgerald slime interests me."
Looseheadprop responded:
"Lance's book is a work of fiction. I wish McCarthy, Fitz et al would sue him for defamation.

In the early chapters he strews Fitzgerlad's name all over the place when talking about events that happened in the early 1980's BEFORE Fiztgerald even got out of law school!

Sara if you want to figure out WHO is behind the sliming, please note that Judith Reagan of Harper Collins (subsiduiary of Murdoch) publishes this thing
does anyone else have any comments?


ewastud said...

Regarding Wayne Madsen:
I have a lot of respect for him because I think he has many good sources for what he writes. However some of what he writes is much more speculative than most and apparently he has fewer good sources for those stories. A reader needs to assess for him/herself to what degree his information is well-founded. He does not adhere to professional journalistic standards which are much more cautious and reluctant to use anonymous sources.

In some stories he clearly has a lot of accurate info and a deep understanding (such as about Africa). He footnotes his sources in his book Jaded Tasks; I wish he would do that in his website stories, too. It would enhance his credibility.

noise said...

Lance raises some important questions about the SDNY in relation to al Qaeda terrorist investigations. I see no reason why Fitzgerald should be immune from scrutiny.

My guess is that Ali Mohamed was an asset of some intelligence agency (CIA?) and the SDNY was tasked with covering up this association.

Don said...

Sheldon Drobny penned a trio of posts at HuffPo critical of Fitz (here, here, and here), specifically questioning his objectivity. (there may have been others, but those were the 3 for which I still had the links)

In the wave of reassignments, firings, and smearings over the last few years, Fitz's managed to remain (for the most part) untargeted. Probably nothing but with this crew, curious nonetheless. I'm looking forward to reading the liveblogs of the Libby trial, especially Jeralyn Meritt and CHS, attourneys themselves. The analyses should be enlightening.

lukery said...

thnx ewastud. there does appear to be an art (one that I don't have)

Noise and Don - thnx. I certainly don't think that Fitz should be above scrutiny - although I'm cautiously optimistic that he's as clean as he appears. I'd sure love to know if the Lance / Drobny claims are legit.

Interestingly, James Comey, the guy who appointed Fitz, has gone on to be General Counsel at Lockheed...

Miguel said...

"I think Lance is bought and paid for by someone."

Poppycock. Absolute rubbish, there is no evidence to support that.

Lance has the right to his opinions. Personally, I feel disillusioned with Fitz and have no more use for him. All we get from the leak of Brewster Jennings is one lousy prosecution?

I think we in the progressive community, including myself, put far too much faith in a federal prosecutor.