Home > Political Ranting > Cheney’s Complicity and the Shelter of a Shred of Doubt

Cheney’s Complicity and the Shelter of a Shred of Doubt

October 25th, 2005

Oops. Turns out Scooter Libby lied. Who’da thunk?

Conservatives have been trying to convince us that anyone and everyone blew Valerie Plame’s cover other than someone in the White House. The press blew her cover. Libby didn’t tell the press, the press told Libby. No? OK, then Joe Wilson blew her cover. Plame blew her own cover. And so on. But now we’ve learned something more important: Libby got Plame’s identity from Dick Cheney, and Cheney got it from George Tenet, director of the C.I.A.

Now think about that. It was exactly the time when Cheney was asking for information on Wilson because Wilson was challenging Bush’s Niger claim, and a month before Bob Novak made Plame’s C.I.A. status public. George Tenet just “happened” to mention to Cheney that Wilson’s wife was an undercover C.I.A. agent, then Cheney “happened” to mention it to his chief of staff, Libby, who then “happened” to mention it to a half dozen reporters. Um, yeah.

Now, there’s no proof that either Cheney or Libby knew that Plame was undercover and her status was classified. There’s no proof that Cheney or Libby sought to distribute the information in order to attack Wilson and ruin his wife’s career. And there’s no proof that Hillary Clinton is considering a run for the White House in 2008. But in all three cases, it is glaringly obvious that what appears to be the case is without any doubt whatsoever actually the case.

But Ness got Capone on tax evasion, and Fitzgerald (whose straight-shooter status is strong and firm) appears to at the very least have Libby on perjury. I’ll go for that, if we can’t nail them on the traitorous crimes we just as surely know they committed.

And while this new information may not provide prosecutable evidence against Cheney, it sure pulls aside the curtain and leaves little doubt that he was deeply involved, and the whole idea was to smear Wilson and anyone else who got in the way.

One thing’s for sure, it will be very interesting to see what Fitzgerald comes out with this week.

Categories: Political Ranting Tags: by
  1. socrates
    October 26th, 2005 at 03:15 | #1

    Raw Story is reporting that Fitzgerald is only planning to hand down one or two indictments. And there’s no guarantee if the grand jury will go along with it or not. I have no idea if their sources are correct or not. What an anti-climax if this is true.

  2. ykw
    October 26th, 2005 at 04:11 | #2

    I don’t think they intentionally outted the cia agent to get to wilson, because if they did that, they probably operate like that on a regular basis (as opposed to doing it now for the 1st time), and we’d see evidence of it in other, more important cases. I think someone got sloppy somewhere; or, Scooter is loosing his marbles in some way, and got agressive due to loss of marble.

  3. Luis
    October 26th, 2005 at 09:55 | #3

    Most people disagree with you; 9 of 10 think that they broke the law in leaking the name.

    Further, reports are that 1-5 indictments will be issued tomorrow, more likely 5 than 1, and a press conference will be held Thursday.

  4. socrates
    October 26th, 2005 at 11:40 | #4

    Either Raw Story updated the story I read, or I just can’t read very well. What it said after I double checked was that there would be AT LEAST one or two indictments. There could be many more. Sorry. I think it will be between 10-15.

  5. gq
    October 27th, 2005 at 08:51 | #5

    Plamegate golden rule:

    Everything you hear in the media about this case has been leaked by someone with an agenda. Besides presenting a moment of meta-irony, this should give one pause as to jumping to conclusions. Most of what Fitzgeraldk knows has not been discussed in the press.

    All I’ll say about this investigation is, to invoke the spirit of Yoggi Berra, if Fitzgerald wasn’t going to do anything, he would have done it by now.

  6. cc
    August 31st, 2006 at 06:59 | #6

    Oops. Turns out the White House didn’t target Wilson. Who’da thunk.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/08/plame_and_the_bush_lied_meme.html

    You haven’t had any comments about Plame in months, so I’m posting it here. Interesting how such a huge so-called scandal has fizzled out into such a non-conspiracy. So many people and articles suggested that the administration was so eager to destroy Joseph Wilson for allegedly revealing corrupt reasons for going to Iraq. We finally now know that none of it was true. All those people who said Bush lied will have to try to come to term with reality once and for all. I know some will never be able to admit they were wrong. Will you?

    Goes to show that hatred/bitterness can be blinding.

  7. Luis
    August 31st, 2006 at 13:14 | #7

    Oops. Turns out you’ve been reading right-wing rags and believing everything you read again. The article you referenced was full of tired old lies and misinformation along with brand-new lies and misinterpretations about the Plame affair. You think you can throw up a link to a biased conservative columnist and everyone will fall at your feet admitting you were right and they were wrong? How rather naive and gullible of you.

  8. cc
    September 1st, 2006 at 04:10 | #8

    Here you go: so much for “lies” that I am too gullible not to believe.

    “Armitage Admits Role in CIA Leak”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/washington/30armitage.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

  9. cc
    September 1st, 2006 at 04:31 | #9

    And don’t forget that the only person indicted was “Scooter” Libby, who was not indicted for leaking or for anything to do with the original reason of the whole affair. He was indicted for obstructing the investigation. In this case, the investigation was an attempt to uncover information that would lead to higher-up officials, but it never came about. Some expected Karl Rove to be indicted, and despite a liberal website (Truthsomething, whatever it was) that claimed he was indicted… it never happened. All the haters’ big dream of the corrupt White House going after Joseph Wilson for revealing them to be liars before going to Iraq has now crumbled. And you’re all afraid to admit it.

    One more thing. There’s a book called “Hubris” written by Michael Issikoff and David Corn (hardly Bush supporters, you would agree) which states that the actual leakers were not revealed to the President. Apparently, as little info as possible was told to the White House.

  10. Luis
    September 1st, 2006 at 16:53 | #10

    Please. Your entire argument is lame, as is your right-wing source’s. The story is that Armitage (a) thinks he was Novak’s source (quote, I may be the guy who caused this whole thing, emphasis mine), (b) even that information came via the under-secretary of state, and from Scooter Libby before him, and (c) does absolutely nothing to disprove any of the considerable evidence that you claim is now nullified. The words “pipe dream” come to mind.

    What the revelation does not do is to disprove any of the claims that you now act as if are shot to pieces. The Armitage story does not clear Rove or Libby of wrongdoing (see this), does not prove that Armitage was the initial leaker, nor does it prove that no one else was attempting to leak Plame’s identity. Kelly’s most “incriminating” quote from Corn and Isikoff is that “The Armitage news does not fit neatly into that framework”–light-years from being the proof that you claim that the Bush administration was not gunning for Plame.

    As for the lack of indictments, it was clear since the beginning that such indictments would be near-impossible to get (didn’t stop any of us from hoping that justice would be served), and would require Bush people themselves blabbing. The indictment for obstruction was also expected to be the worst from the beginning, as people tend to be stupid and try too hard to cover things up, ending up incriminating themselves in the cover-up where they could have gotten away with it by just shutting up and doing nothing.

    But a lack of indictments does not mean nothing illegal was done, as I am sure you would insist be the case when one looks back on the Clinton administration.

    Armitage’s statement does nothing more than add a footnote to yet another case of the Bush administration violating the law and attacking the security of the nation, and getting away with it. It does not prove or disprove anything, and the Kelly article which you so naively bought into does nothing but take one incredibly inconclusive line from a new book and then heap tired old wingnut lies and rhetoric on top of it.

    Sorry, but you got snookered by your own willingness to believe what you want so desperately to be true… again.

  11. Luis
    September 1st, 2006 at 17:13 | #11

    Jesus. Talk about dishonest. You said, So many people and articles suggested that the administration was so eager to destroy Joseph Wilson for allegedly revealing corrupt reasons for going to Iraq. We finally now know that none of it was true. … All the haters’ big dream of the corrupt White House going after Joseph Wilson for revealing them to be liars before going to Iraq has now crumbled. And you’re all afraid to admit it.The source for your conclusion? The article by Kelly, which in turn relies on a quote from David Corn, who revealed the Armitage story.

    But look at where the Corn quote comes from, and what else he says just a few paragraphs down:Whether he had purposefully mentioned this information to Novak or had slipped up, Armitage got the ball rolling–and abetted a White House campaign under way to undermine Wilson. At the time, top White House aides–including Karl Rove and Scooter Libby–were trying to do in Wilson. … Armitage’s role aside, the public record is without question: senior White House aides wanted to use Valerie Wilson’s CIA employment against her husband. Rove leaked the information to Cooper, and Libby confirmed Rove’s leak to Cooper. Libby also disclosed information on Wilson’s wife to New York Times reporter Judith Miller. (emphasis mine)Your own source proves you wrong, showing selective quotations out of context.

    How lame can you be?

  12. cc
    September 2nd, 2006 at 06:12 | #12

    “But a lack of indictments does not mean nothing illegal was done, as I am sure you would insist be the case when one looks back on the Clinton administration.”

    I would consider an impeachment almost the equivalent of an indictment. It is charging the President with a crime. The fact that he was acquitted by the senate is similar to a jury voting on whether he is found guilty. The fact that Clinton apologized for his actions proves he did something wrong, but it might not have risen to high crimes and misdemeanors under the consitution. Or maybe he got lucky and escaped conviction on a partisan vote in Congress. Either way, he was indicted by the House of Representatives.

    Karl Rove was ruled out by Patrick Fitzgerald, special prosecutor, for any indictments. Quite a different story.

    “Sorry, but you got snookered by your own willingness to believe what you want so desperately to be true… again.”

    Okay so you tell me why Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has so far come up with NOTHING in THREE years?

    Maybe your willingness to believe what YOU so desperately want to be true has snookered YOU.

  13. Luis
    September 2nd, 2006 at 11:31 | #13

    “But a lack of indictments does not mean nothing illegal was done, as I am sure you would insist be the case when one looks back on the Clinton administration.”

    I would consider an impeachment almost the equivalent of an indictment.I’m not surprised that you’re trying to weasel out of this point. The point, of course, is that you undoubtedly believe that Clinton was guilty of far more than he was tagged for, that despite many years-longs investigations, the best they could come up with was “he lied about having sex with that woman.” Do you now believe that this was his only sin?

    Not to mention that it’s a weak-ass argument even if you do–the impeachment vote was in Clinton’s favor, meaning he was “cleared” of this “indictment,” by the analogy you have set. Oh, the irony!

    Karl Rove was ruled out by Patrick Fitzgerald, special prosecutor, for any indictments.This meshes with my first point. Do you believe that since Clinton was not charged with all of what you think he did, that he did none of it? Of course you don’t believe that–and yet now you’re trying to say that if there were no official charges against Rove, and no charges about leaking information by anyone, that means the wrongs never happened. What a hypocrite.

    Not to mention the fact that you are now completely ignoring my point that your ultimate source of information about this whole subject, David Corn, completely negated your argument; that Kelly’s out-of-context quote led you to a conclusion that was dead opposite to Corn’s actual assessment.

    As you yourself put it: “I know some will never be able to admit they were wrong. Will you?”

    Oh, wait, I forgot–hypocrisy.

  14. cc
    September 5th, 2006 at 04:15 | #14

    .

  15. Luis
    September 5th, 2006 at 10:04 | #15

    That’s what I thought.

  16. cc
    September 6th, 2006 at 02:28 | #16

    I’ve posted my response twice, and you’ve only let through a period I accidentally submitted instead. What does this mean? You’re no longer posting my comments?

    If that’s the case, then it is not fair to submit the period to make it look as if I had nothing to rebut you with. I think you would call such a tactic Karl Rovian.

    I suppose it’s possible my two posts were not received and it’s a technical mishap. But it looks very suspect.

  17. Luis
    September 6th, 2006 at 02:47 | #17

    If I wanted to screw around with posts by people I don’t agree with, you would have known it long ago. I have posted all of your comments faithfully, and am insulted by your insinuation. The comment with the sole period was the last I received, and have heard no reports from any other commenters of any difficulty in posting.

  18. Luis
    September 7th, 2006 at 04:52 | #18

    So is that how you hide from admitting you were wrong? By hiding behind claimed technical difficulties and then disappearing?

    By the way, read this, it confirms what I’ve already told you. This one will as well. And if you don’t trust the source, then answer to the facts and the rationale, like I did when you presented me with Kelly’s article.

  19. cc
    September 8th, 2006 at 00:51 | #19

    So sad, Luis. You just can’t admit that I (and those articles) are not the only ones saying it’s time to put the Plame investigation away. It’s solved. It is over. You are stubborn in your desire to see this administration burn that you will cling to any possibility of it happening. I don’t fault you for it – I’m probably just as stubborn. But in this case, it ain’t happening. You were wrong. Lots of people were wrong. Even I feared the worst when it began oh-so-long ago. But I eventually saw the whole thing was politically motivated on Joseph Wilson’s part, mostly because of Libby’s non-crime indictment among other things. Maybe you don’t see it, but a lot of people do now.

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/30/greenfield.plame/index.html

    http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=155683

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/648ygtoe.asp

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/

    I’ll admit not all of these authors are Bush haters. Nor have all of them been outright Bush supporters, either. Even the New York Times had an article wherein they state that Armitage admitted his role.

    Time to face facts: There was no crime committed. Plame’s name was given to Robert Novak, inadvertantly. Novak then revealed this in an article, and that started the whole thing. Actually, Joseph Wilson was the one who got the ball rolling by lying about Bush’s 2003 SOTU address. But, whatever. The one and only person indicted for anything here was not named for any actual crime. It was all done to see if Fitzgerald could get more information out of people if Scooter Libby was indicted. (In other words, it was a fishing expedition.) And he didn’t. All he managed to get out of it was to cite Libby with a lame “obstruction” charge – which even he acknowledged had nothing to do with what he was investigating – and let everyone else off the hook. Give us all a break, and stop pretending I don’t know what reality is.

    Seriously, I may not be a scholar, and I may not argue my case as well as I’d like, but this one is too clear for all to see.

    Now, as for Clinton. I believe there is no way to prove that Clinton was involved in a number of investigated events and incidents. Maybe other Right-wingers harp on Whitewater and any other number of things. I do not. Until Monica Lewinsky, Clinton was good at keeping above controversies. Eventually, he was charged with lying under oath and obstructing justice. He was found Not Guilty. Hey, so was OJ. But here’s what it comes down to. In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. This is something I have maintained, even in conversations about such people as the aforementioned OJ.

    Here’s my point. I think Clinton will be remembered as a merely average President. He didn’t come off as trustworthy (most people polled during his presidency said the same thing). However, he was never found guilty of a crime (although he did get his law licensce revoked after admitting he did not tell the truth.)

    In this case, Patrick Fitzgerald flat out decided Rove had nothing to do with the so-called “leak”. And with Libby not being connected to any “leak” – by Fitzgerald’s own admission – how can you NOT come to the conclusion that nothing noteworthy was found in this investigation?

    If you wanna go on believing that sinister things were going on in the Bush administration over Wilson’s article, all well and good. You have every right. But if there really was something sinister, more would have come from Fitzgerald’s investigation by now.

  20. Luis
    September 8th, 2006 at 22:25 | #20

    So, you come in here charging that liberal commentators are saying that the Plame scandal is over and done with. I prove that your claim was 100% wrong, that your source took quotes out of context, and the context completely contradicted your claim here.

    Your response is to simply ignore the fact that your initial evidence was completely worthless, and then to stubbornly deny that any wrongdoing took place, by simply ignoring that wrongs took place. You give four links to opinion pieces (at least one right-wing, and one even contradicting your point), as if that proves anything. You’re grasping at straws by trying to pretend that if Armitage inadvertently leaked Plame’s name, then no one else did, when there is a great deal of evidence saying the opposite is true.

    You want to deny reality and act like your the king of logic and reason, go right ahead. Don’t expect me to play.

  21. cc
    September 9th, 2006 at 23:11 | #21

    “You want to deny reality and act like your the king of logic and reason, go right ahead. Don’t expect me to play.”

    I’m just going by what I read, which is substantial. Looking at the articles you linked to, the claim of denying reality could also be levelled at you.

    I see, in a vicious circle sense of conscience, you like repeating the old gossip about Rove and Libby. Many journalists have concluded that Armitage started the ball rolling for reporters like Robert Novak. Couple that with Fitzgerald’s own dismissal of Rove’s and Libby’s role in leaking the info which caused the investigation, the case has nowhere else to go. I understand you and others want to continue the charade with endless speculation that the revelation means nothing. It doesn’t mean that you are right.

    Fitzgerald interviewed Karl Rove several times and publicly announced he was NOT going to indict him.

    Fitzgerald indicted Scooter Libby, but publicly announced that his indictment had “nothing to do” with the leak or any speculated link to the reasons behind the War in Iraq. The prosecutor himself said this.

    In other words, neither Karl Rove OR Libby are now suspected of any crime connected to what the investigation was all about to begin with.

    Furthermore, the original reason for Joseph Wilson’s claims have been long torn down as lies. It is true that Hussein DID seek uranium, albeit unsuccessfully. The “16 words” in the State of Union of 2003, which stated that “British Intelligence” felt there was evidence to support such a claim, was true. The Senate Intelligence Committee and British Intelligence have maintained that the statement had a “credible basis” in fact. And not only did Wilson lie about this, but he also lied about how he got his job to go to Niger in the first place, saying Vice President Cheney had suggested him, when it was his wife Valerie Plame. Then when the truth was revealed, Wilson made unsubstatiated claims that the Bush administration was conspiring to destroy him for “blowing the whistle,” which was never the case.

    So why are you carrying on this incredibly bizzarre rewriting of history by posting articles that still claim Rove and Libby did the leaking and that a conspiracy was conducted to destroy Wilson? If YOU use logic, you’ll see it’s just not so. Fitzgerald himself doesn’t believe this to be the case. So why should we?

Comments are closed.