Soto:
It is important to note that there is nothing in these notes apparently that indicates Cheney or Libby knew any more from Tenet than Plame’s employment at the Agency, and there is no indication that Cheney or Libby knew that Plame was NOC.
That's very fair of you, Steve. It would also be helpful to point out that Cheney and Libby talking to each other about Plame isn't illegal.
But, by the way you end this post, might one start to think that "Judy Kneepads" will become your heroine, after all?
The Times it is a changin'
Posted by at October 24, 2005 09:02 PMBoo-yah.
Libby's going down, and he can turn evidence against Cheney or rot in a cell. The writing is on the wall for him. Of course, he could also choose the unforgivable sin, honorable in some cultures, but I don't think so. the instincts for self-preservation run deep in this administration, like rats trapped in a collapsed sewer line, chewing right through each other's asses to escape.
Posted by Brian Bell at October 24, 2005 09:10 PMBut note something else. The Times says tonight in this piece that Cheney was interviewed by Fitzgerald under oath.
I may have hallucinated it, but I have a clear memory of reading that Cheney was not under oath for his interview with Fitz. Can I be the only one?
Posted by dj moonbat at October 24, 2005 09:11 PMThe source is almost certainly Libby's lawyer. No one else would tell this tale quite this way. Tate may be laying groundwork in the p.r. war or as part of the plea bargaining.
He's admitting that Libby may not have told the truth, but he was just trying to protect his boss, the Vice President of the United States. What loyalty. What a mensch. That's part of the message. Tate is suggesting how could Fitzgerald send Libby up the river just for that. At the same time, nothing Tate said necessarily implicates Cheney in a crime (though it certainly doesn't do him much good). The only strange thing was the statement that Cheney learned this information from Tenet (I doubt that's the whole story and wonder if it's any more credible than Libby's original story that he learned about Valerie Wilson from journalists. Bolton's office, I suspect, is in some way involved.
Posted by Ben Brackley at October 24, 2005 09:13 PMdj moonbat, you're thinking of the 9-11 commission, a different animal than a grand jury investigation's deposition, which by definition requires an oath.
Posted by Brian Bell at October 24, 2005 09:14 PMThat's very fair of you, Steve. It would also be helpful to point out that Cheney and Libby talking to each other about Plame isn't illegal.
It kinda depends. If they're hanging out saying "Joe Wilson's a bastard, but damn, his wife is kinda hot," you're right.
But if it went "Joe Wilson's a bastard, let's burn his wife," not so much. It's called "conspiracy."
Posted by dj moonbat at October 24, 2005 09:16 PMMy own personal theory on this leak, and many others related to Libby, is that Rove did it. My read of the situation is they were working on this smear Wilson operation together, but a week ago Rove make's a last-minute grand jury appearance. Why? He cut a deal, he's spilling the beans on Libby. He's cooperating and is now busy as hell throwing Libby under the bus, but he's offered him the key out of it: Turn evidence against Cheney.
Posted by Brian Bell at October 24, 2005 09:18 PMdj moonbat, you're thinking of the 9-11 commission, a different animal than a grand jury investigation's deposition, which by definition requires an oath. [emphasis in bold is mine]
You're mistaken. Fitzgerald was free to take "interviews" in private, not under oath or in front of the grand jury, and then to report [or NOT to report] information from those interviews to the grand jury as part of the ongoing investigation.
My understanding was that Bush, Cheney, and Rice had all been interviewed off the record. My understanding that Cheney was unsworn may well be wrong. But the possibility certainly exists that these big wheels were interviewed without an oath, and out of sight of the grand jury--it's not "definitional."
Posted by dj moonbat at October 24, 2005 09:33 PMD., the only conspiracy was the one hatched between Wilson and his wife when they decided to out themselves and go on the A-list cocktail circuit.
But, yeah, Mrs. Wilson is hot.
Posted by Toby Petzold at October 24, 2005 09:34 PMThese are the Bush rats vs the Cheney roaches. The leaks will continue until the deals are complete.
Posted by smooth at October 24, 2005 09:55 PMI think George Bush is a great American and our greatest U.S. president.
Posted by Duncan Kirkpatrick at October 24, 2005 10:02 PMRather than Judy Miller herself, her lawyer probably was the source for the Cheney tidbit: Bob Bennet.
Posted by Marylander at October 24, 2005 10:06 PMI think it's great to have a website that supports George W. Bush and I am proud to have added to it. I've had enough of all these conspiracy theories it's nice to see people finally coming together and supporting the administration.
Posted by Duncan Kirkpatrick at October 24, 2005 10:07 PMThe knowledge of Ms. Wilson being a covert agent is being used to take heat off of the Bush Admininstration. The words used in the Times article and by Republicans and the corporate media are not found in the actual act itself. Cheney, Libby, Rove, Bush and all the rest are in the same catch 22 they also operate in. If Cheney, Libby, Rove, Bush and all didn't know Ms. Wilson was a covert asset they should be fired for incompetence and if they knew the should be impeached for treason.
Posted by smooth at October 24, 2005 10:14 PMThis whole thing started to smell funny when George Tenet was awarded the Medal of Freedom. I recall being puzzled at the time Bush pinned the medal on him; the administration was blaming Tenet's CIA for all the intelligence screw-ups relating to Iraq, but at the same time they are giving the guy one of the nation's highest honors? Huh? Looks to this humble observer like Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld were trying to blow some smoke up Tenet's ass and buy his silence.
If Fitzgerald has Libby's nuts in a vise on a perjury charge or worse, he may be able to leverage that into a plea bargain deal that would allow Libby to get off with a lighter rap in exchange for providing incriminating evidence on Cheney.
I'm predicting that it won't be long before we see evidence of the Bushniks ratting on each other. Thus far, tribal loyalty has sustained them. But once they realize that the sacred pact has broken down and its every schmuck for hisself, then we are going to have some fun.
Posted by global yokel at October 24, 2005 10:20 PMRove ratted out Scooter in his 4th GJ appearance. Fitzgerald probably reminded Rove and his lawyer that Rove could face multiple charges including treason/espionage/perjury/obstruction and as we know treason could mean the death penalty. Rove did not go back to clarify his previous statements.
but the WH won't give up easily. They are preping counter-attacks when indictments come and it will.
And the WaPo counter punches with this...
Husband Is Conspicuous in Leak Case
Wilson's Credibility Debated as Charges In Probe Considered
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401690.html
Posted by jillian at October 24, 2005 10:35 PMAnd Chris Nelson, of the Nelson Report, has an interesting scenario about just who Fitzgerald's target really is.
Posted by Sean-Paul at October 24, 2005 11:16 PMI think the forces of darkness are leaking this information for a couple of purposes. First, since Libby's notes say what they say, they're softening us up for what will inevitably disclosed, ie. that Libby discussed the fact Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. The spin for the news cyle and talking heads, however, is that: "Mr. Libby's notes indicate that Mr. Cheney had gotten his information about Ms. Wilson from George J. Tenet. . ." This tends to suggest that Tenet may not have disclosed Plame's covert status, and that they didn't know what they were doing (which is of course belied by their frantic coverup). But perhaps it's just a sneaky way of saying that the document, a portion of which was marked "top secret" and circulated on Airforce One, came in response to a request Cheney made to the CIA, through Tenet. Note that under the Espionage Act it's a crime to be grossly negligent in disclosing classified information. That means if Cheney, Libby,etc. did nothing to determine whether or not Plame was covert, they might still be convicted of gross negligence under the Espionage Act, which would be relatively easy to prove.
Posted by justwondering at October 24, 2005 11:33 PMSean-Paul, is this what you are talking about?
Hannah target letter? Here's Chris Nelson in the Nelson Report:
Before we start, today’s hot gossip is that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald may have sent a “target letter”...an official warning of a likely indictment...to Vice President Cheney’s deputy chief of staff, John Hannah. According to sources which have been right from time to time, Hannah has told associates he has been forced to cut a deal, and that they think this includes testifying against his immediate boss, Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
Hannah’s name resonates to the insiders, since he is a samurai for UN Amb. John Bolton, detailed to the White House while Bolton was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs...in other words, an office with folks quite likely to have known the CIA connection which may form the basis of any criminal indictments in this case...
Posted by Judith at October 25, 2005 03:08 AMFrom the Washington Notehttp://www.thewashingtonnote.com/
Larry Wilkerson Erases Any Doubts About Cheney-Rumsfeld Cabal in Tomorrow Morning's Los Angeles Times
I have just been tipped off that the Los Angeles Times plans to run a rip-the-veneer-off the White House cabal op-ed by Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former State Department Chief of Staff, in the morning.
I have read it...It's 998 words of honest patriotism that Americans need to hear -- and 998 tons of dynamite on the Executive Office of the President.
Here is a short teaser, but you must read the entire article in the Los Angeles Times that I will link as soon as it us up:
But many of the most crucial decisions from 2001 to 2005 were not made within the NSC process.
Scholars and knowledgeable critics of America's decision-making process may rightly say, so what? Haven't all of our presidents in the last half century failed to conform to the statutory process at one time or another? Isn't it the President's prerogative to make decisions with whomever he pleases? Moreover, can he not ignore whomever he pleases? Why should we care that President Bush gave over much of the critical decision-making to his vice president and his secretary of defense?
Both as a former academic and as a person who has been in the ring with the bull, I believe there are two reasons we should care. First, such departures from the statutory process have in the past led us into a host of disasters, including the last years of the Vietnam War, the Iran-Contra scandal, and now the ruinous foreign policy of George W. Bush.
That's not even the best part, or even the second best part.
I'll post more on this important article in the morning.
And catch the post below. Dick Cheney was Libby's source. Do you remember Bush demanding that his staff tell him who did it?
President Bush and Cheney have deceived the American public about Valerie Plame Wilson and her covert role on behalf of the national security interests of this nation -- and they did this during a time of war. Their words.
-- Steve Clemons
Posted by Judith at October 25, 2005 03:27 AMHope Cheney's heart can take what is probably coming his way. Hey Dick, stress is really bad for ya.
Posted by Judith at October 25, 2005 03:32 AM"Judy Miller would." That's a great point.
Posted by kim at October 25, 2005 05:28 AMJudy Miller would.>/i>
Boy, is that a mouthful.
Posted by tempus at October 25, 2005 06:31 AMSteve,
Cheney's response to Russert can be read just like his defenders claimed about his comments that he didn't know John Edwards and never had met him, when in fact he had. That is, they will say that, well, yes, technically I knew of him and who he was, but he was small potatoes, so there was no motive for me to be going after him
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I don’t know Joe Wilson. I’ve never met Joe Wilson. A question had arisen. I’d heard a report that the Iraqis had been trying to acquire uranium in Africa, Niger in particular. I get a daily brief on my own each day before I meet with the president to go through the intel. And I ask lots of question. One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, “What do we know about this?” They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, “This is all we know. There’s a lot we don’t know,” end of statement. And Joe Wilson—I don’t who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back.
I'm just saying that in the ongoing font of hypocrisy that is this administration, this one has been dodged before and will be dodged in precisely the same way. The good thing is that the pool of receptive ears is growing shallower.
Posted by Nash at October 25, 2005 07:27 AMCheney meant that he did not "know" Wilson, you know, in the biblical sense. Which I, for one, am glad to hear.
It is entirely possible that he never met Wilson and you know like shook hands with him, chatted about baseball and had a beer. So you see there is no intimacy here at all.
I mean when you are the Secretary of Defense during the First Gulf and Wilson is the Ambassador on the spot and in the shit, he might have heard of him, read reports from him, read reports about him, saw him on television, been briefed on him, might even have heard his voice on a speaker phone during a conference, but certainly never met him.
So you see Cheney is telling the truth. See how easy that is.
Posted by j swift at October 25, 2005 08:29 AMThe next thing will be the trolls telling us that Cheney really didn't know the pResident. Heard of him, yes, but actually never really met him. LOL
Posted by Judith at October 25, 2005 10:25 AMSteve:
Sorry. There's no way Judy's behind this leak. This article is co-bylined by Johnston, Jehl, and Stevenson, the three people at NYT who hate Judy the most (if such a superlative is possible to discern). And Judy knows it--and returns the favor. Even if Judy (or Bennett) DID want to leak this information, they would never ever do it though these guys--nor would they take anything from Judy seriously.
My own take is that this article is an attempt to misdirect suspicion from the Bolton boys (Bolton, Fleitz, Hannah, and Wurmser) and onto Tenet. In which case it IS plausible that Libby leaked this (actually, Tate). The Tenet did it may end up being the last pathetic attempt to avoid having the entire Cheney cabal go down.
Posted by emptywheel at October 25, 2005 11:50 AMErrr. Seems like some are saying that Off "A" is Rove.
Posted by Simp at October 28, 2005 01:48 PM