So how do we get the war prosecuted?

[carolinalady]

per the Fitz news conference:

FITZGERALD: This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.


This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer's identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person -- a person, Mr. Libby -- lied or not.


The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.


And I think anyone's who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.

FITZGERALD: They will be frustrated and, frankly, it would just -- it wouldn't be good for the process and the fairness of a trial.

[Dagaz]

1. At the ballot box

Looking backward isn't the answer.

[Lubernaut]

2. Ballot boxes themselves being a critical factor...

edit >>> typo, dang it.

[ChiciB1]

3. Patience... This Is NOT The End...

One name comes to mind.... Nixon! I followed like a raving banshee way back then and I thought I would go nuts! I constructed a complete newspaper account of everything, every day. Cutting and pasting and watching the hearings.

Just last year while getting ready for a garage sale I found ALL my work!! Faded and old, but an in your face reminder of days gone by! Just think how long it took back then??

Today is so instant this, instant that... so I say PATIENCE!

[carolinalady]

5. That is totally cool. I predict you will someday write a great book

[EVDebs]

4. War Powers Act of 1973's 'circumstances' and 'situations'

www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

"Clearly indictated" "circumstances" "situations"

means implied truthful circumstances and situations, not fabrications.

Too bad Fitzgerald lacked the balls to go to the heart of the matter that mattered most.

BTW, the Congress's Iraq War Resolution

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

"(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution."

Since Congress will not investigate or delve into the matter of Bush's fabrication of WMD 'slam dunk' material, just as with Vietnam Congress will have to slowly pull the financing rug out from under this Iraq adventure and if they don't we have to make it known we will vote the rascals out.

It's up to US not Mr. Fitzgerald to end this war a.s.a.p. Fitz did his part, now we have to do ours...Takin' it to the streets.

In the meantime go to your video store and rent Three Days of the Condor and pay close attention to the plot's major secret, seizure of Middle East oilfields, as Nixon planned in 1973.

U.S. Mulled Seizing Oil Fields In '73
British Memo Cites Notion of Sending Airborne to Mideast
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A46321-2003Dec31¬Found=true