Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Lamb Chops vs Pork Chops (Plame Thread #7)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:51 AM
Original message
Lamb Chops vs Pork Chops (Plame Thread #7)
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 09:51 AM by H2O Man
"The rumors swirling around Rove, Libby, and Abrams were so pervasive in Washington that the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, was obliged to address them in an October 2003 briefing, saying of Rove: ‘The president knows he wasn’t involved … It’s simply not true.’ McClellan refused to be drawn into a similar direct denial of Libby’s or Abram’s possible involvement, however. Later interpretations of the line being taken by the White House spokesman, according to members of the press who have spoken with me, indicate that the administration’s defense is extremely narrow: the leakers and pushers of the story did not know the undercover status of Valerie Plame, and therefore, though they may have disclosed her name, they did not commit a crime." – The Politics of Truth; Joseph Wilson; pages 444-445.

In last week’s opening statement, defense attorney Teddy Well claimed that I. Liar Libby was being made into a "sacrificial lamb" by a White House intent upon protecting Karl Rove. Those following the case debated if this was merely the tactics of defense attorneys seeking to shift blame from their guilty-as-hell client,; if the administration was attempting to manipulate public perception; or if there was indeed a struggle between the Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President.

I believe that there was a serious conflict involving people within Bush’s and Cheney’s offices. It is important to recognize that this does not mean that there was tension between Bush and Cheney. Rather, it suggests that there was hostility between those working inside the two offices. If there was a split between the two offices, then it is likely that it has been exploited by Patrick Fitzgerald. And, if that is true, then it is possible that by looking closer at the tensions between Bush and Cheney’s offices, we might be able to identify one area where VP Cheney will be at risk, should he actually testify.

One of the best sources of information on the Plame scandal is, of course, Joseph Wilson’s book. He notes how the OVP had initiated a "work up" on him, in order to be prepared to undercut any effort he made to expose the lies about the Niger yellow cake. He writes, "between March 2003 and the appearance of my article in July, the workup on me that turned up the information on Valerie was shared with Karl Rove, who then circulated it in administration and neoconservative circles." (page 443)

We know from the Libby indictment that Rove told Libby that he had spoken with Bob Novak, and that Novak was writing an article that would expose Valerie Plame. And after Novak’s article was published, Rove was among the White House officials attempting to promote the new spin: "Rove’s strategy appears to have been simple – change the subject and focus attention on Valerie and me instead of the White House – but it proved to be seriously flawed," Wilson writes. The "serious flaw" was that exposing Plame’s identity was a crime. And, "according to two journalist sources of mine, when Rove learned that he might have violated the law, he turned on Cheney and Libby and made it clear that he held them responsible for the problem they had created for the administration. The protracted silence on this topic from the White House masks considerable tension between the Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President." (page 444)

If Wilson is correct, then we should be able to find evidence of those "tensions" by looking just beneath the surface. In their book "Hubris," authors Michael Isikoff and David Corn note that in late Spetember, 2003, there was considerable tension as the media reported the Plame leak was under investigation. Press reports indicated that Novak was but one of many journalists called by at least two administration officials looking to expose Valerie Plame as a CIA employee. Rumors in Washington hinted that Karl Rove was involved. Isikoff & Corn note that "the questions started coming about Rove. Was he involved in the leak to Novak?

" ‘I’ve made it very clear, from the beginning, that it is totally ridiculous,’ McClellan said. ‘I’ve known Karl for a long time, and I didn’t even need to go ask Karl, because I know what kind of person that he is, and that he is someone committed to the highest standards of conduct.’ But McClellan added, ‘I have spoken with Karl about this matter … I’ve made it very clear that he was not involved, that there’s no truth to the suggestion that he was.’

"What about the vice president? Could McClellan say categorically that Cheney wasn’t involved?

" ‘I’ve made it clear that there’s been nothing, absolutely nothing brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement, and that includes the vice president’s office,’ he remarked." (pages 322-323)

Isikoff & Corn go on to describe McClellan taking "another pounding" at the next press briefing, and how mid-level White House officials were convinced that Rove and Libby had not been involved in the scandal. This is because there were attempts to cover-up the involvement of the members of the president’s and vice president’s offices. The truth was being kept from co-workers. And efforts were being made to shift suspicion away from the most powerful members of the White House. Let’s look at part of Scooter’s effort.

One of the most important pre-trial documents in the case is the Government’s Response to Defendant’s Third Motion to Compel Discovery, filed on April 5, 2006. On pages 27-28, we find the following:

"During this time, while the President was unaware of the role that the Vice President’s Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser had in fact played in disclosing Ms. Plame’s CIA employment, defendant implored White House officials to have a public statement issued exonerating him. When his initial efforts met with no success, defendant sought the assistance of the Vice President in having his name cleared. Though the defendant knew that another White House official had spoken with Novak in advance of Novak’s column and that official had learned in advance that Novak would be publishing information about Wilson’s wife, defendant did not disclose that fact to other White House officials (including the Vice President) but instead prepared a handwritten statement of what he wished White House Press Secretary McClellan would say to exonerate him:

"People have made too much of the difference in
How I described Karl and Libby
I’ve talked to Libby.
I said it was ridiculous about Karl
And it is ridiculous about Libby.
Libby was not the source of the Novak story.
And he did not leak classified information."

Scooter continued to feel that the White House was protecting Rove at his expense when McClellan refused to go out on a limb for him. In "The trial of Dick Cheney" (1-24-07) Justin Raimondo quotes from Teddy Wells’ opening statements, as reported on FireDogLake by "emptywheel":

"Mr. Libby was not concerned about losing his job. He was concerned about being the scapegoat.

"Mr. Libby said to the VP, ‘I think the White House people are trying to set me up, people want me to be the scapegoat. People in the White House want me to protect Karl Rove ….’

"Cheney made notes of what Libby said. Notes show Libby telling the Vice President that he was not involved in leak…."

As a result of Libby’s concerns, David Corn writes in his blog (1-24-07), "Cheney pressured the White House press office to make a statement clearing Libby of any wrongdoing. …. Responding to Libby’s gripe, Cheney wrote a note that said, ‘Not going to protect one staff (and) sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others’."

All of this took place on late September and early October of 2003. At the time, Attorney General John Ashcroft was monitoring the Department of Justice’s investigation. Though some democrats in Congress were requesting a special prosecutor to investigate the scandal, Ashcroft was not willing to recuse himself. It would not be until December that he finally did step aside, and allow James Comey to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald to the case. And it would not be until October of 2005 that Libby was indicted.

The focus on Rove continued: in an April 12, 2006 document, Team Libby noted that "Mr. Rove remains a subject of a continuing grand jury investigation." In this context, it seems unlikely that the tensions over McClellan’s comments were all part of a White House charade to provide potential cover for Scooter in case he went on trial in 2007. Rather, this evidence supports what Joseph Wilson described as "considerable tensions between the Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President."

And this will be an interesting area for both the defense and prosecution to question VP Cheney about, should he actually testify. Will Dick cling to the lie that he had no idea that Scooter was involved in the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity to journalists? And what exactly was he speaking of when he mentioned "the incompetence of others"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. Links To Previous Plame Threads
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. Link To Court Documents As Found On Plame Thread #6
The Cheney Gospels

H2O Man

66. Also see this site Updated at 2:51 PM
for both prosecution and defense documents:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/index.html

http://h2oman.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. I hope that DUers
take full advantage of the opportunity to examine these court exhibits. It's actually pretty interesting reading. I wish that there had been an internt back in the Watergate and the Iran-Contra days!

VP Dick Cheney counts on secrecy in order to accomplish his goals. This is one reason why it is so important that the public have access to this type of material. Injustice does not do well in the light of day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. I Was Kind Of Amused
with GX703 Schmall. Completely redacted with just one small notation in the upper left hand corner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
2. H2O Man, thanks for your continued observations and commentary.
I've reread Cheney's words several times. I have my own idea about whom the "others" might be. I look forward to your posts every day, and K & R. :kick: MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
3. Interesting scenarios await us all. It's going to be interesting
to see how the pressure gets to the players involved. The larger the conspiracy, the harder to defend the OVP. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
4. This is a great series.
Your perspective on these events help me immensely in making sense of it.

K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
5. Thanks, H20 Man, for this
There aren't enough fingers to plug the holes in the dike anymore. The leak is becoming a stream and soon, I hope, a virtual flood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. "But let justice
flow like a river ...." Amos %:24
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #5
42. another thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondie58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
6. next episode of "as the pork rinds turn" your stomach!
This is just like a soap opera- and I didn't think that I liked soaps. Thanks so much for the clarification, H2O man. This case has more twists and turns than a roller coaster!

What will happen next? Hopefully, Fitz has everything figured out to be able to take down all of the culprits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
8. Thanks H2O man
For these and other answers we will tune in tomorrow to Days of Our Lies.:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondie58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. too funny, Malaise!
Days of our Lies!!!

I just about spewed my coffee all over my keyboard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. It is the best real life soap in town
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 02:57 PM by malaise
Just realized you had 'as the pork turns' :D

Add.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terip64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
9. Thanks, H2O Man! You THE Man! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
10. What About The Silent Players In This Drama?
The ones we haven't heard about or from? Like Wurmser who is back at the WH pursuing his dream of war with Syria. Or Abrams or the elusive Hannah?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ToolTex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
11. As always, your analysis is so helpful. Thank you, Pádraig.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
12. K&R. Keep it coming H2O Man. We appreciate you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
14. Poor guy.




:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
15. Mightn't This Very Tension Be The Reason Libby Won't Get A Pardon
And shouldn't people stop worrying about it? All KKK has to do is whisper in the king's ear that the penitent is not worthy of the king's mercy. After all, Libby has cast shame and doubt onto the house of *.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
16. Thank you again, H2O Man. Another K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
17. The incompetence of others
Maybe Rove for using her name when leaking to Novak? Maybe he wasn't supposed to be so specific?

I also keep looking at the fact that Team Libby kept trying to get Fitz to call Karl. IIRC, there were several attempts to get Fitz to say he was planning on calling Karl as a witness. Finally, when Fitz admits he has no plans to call him, Team Libby admits, "then we will."

Why was it so important to Team Libby to have Karl on the stand? I posted in another thread that I think Karl is an "in case of emergency, break glass" kinda witness. Libby's plans for the memory defense hinge on Libby taking the stand according to Walton. If Wells doesn't want Libby to testify (and it seems he was trying to avoid it since he wanted to use Schmall or Grossman (I forget which) the other day to get some evidence admitted), then he has to fall back on his other defense strategy as outlined in the (muddy and complicated) opening statements: scapegoat for Karl.

Although that's not much of a defense (Karl did it, and I did it too) he really doesn't have much of a defense.

I'm just going to sit back and enjoy the show. Ari's up tomorrow and it's a damn shame I have to go to work.

Thanks for the insight as always.

Did you see that someone has thrown your name into the ring for Gore's VP in 2008? :)http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x64762
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. If Fitz called Rove as a prosecution witness he would have to disclose Rove's grand jury testimony,
statements, related materials to the defense team. And if there was any sort of deal, the prosecution also would have to disclose that to the defense. No doubt Libby's team wanted Fitz to call Rove.

Part of the pretrial arguments between Fitz and the defense, IIRC, was over what Rove info/testimony the Libby team would get from Fitz. Fitz's position was that since he didn't intend to call Rove for the prosecution he had no obligation to turn over all of Rove's testimony, related documents, etc. that do not relate to, don't involve their client Libby.

According to Jeralyn Merritt and Marcy ("emptywheel") it's not clear what the defense wound getting from Fitz pertaining to Rove. I'd figure they'd get stuff that is limited to those statements/documents relevant to Libby and their case.

And if Libby's team doesn't have full disclosure from the prosecution on Rove, that's another reason why the prospect of Rove on the stand for the defense is risky. They don't really know what might come out in court if they do wind up calling him to the stand and if they're not very, very careful on direct examination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. A sticky wicket for Wells indeed.
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 07:01 PM by Patsy Stone
And if there is no deal, then Karl is probably suffering with a bit of agita. Doesn't Wells broad "scapegoat" opening statement, plus Novak's testimony, leave Fitz the opportunity to ask Karl pretty much anything he wants?

:popcorn:

Thanks for the info. BTW, are they still debating what Walton will allow WRT Ari's immunity? Was that resolved, or do arguments continue tomorrow? I admit I'm behind in my FDLing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. I think Fitz is limited on cross examination to stuff raised on direct examination
and if need be he could raise other matters, pursuant to judge's OK, to refute statements given under direct & to challenge Rove's credibility. A real attorney (I just "play" one on the net, LOL) perhaps could clarify, but I think Fitzgerald can't just go all over the place on cross examination, but he can walk through any "door" the defense team opens under direct examination.

Depending on what came up on direct examination, I'd figure Fitz would want to keep the testimony focused to further his case and refute the defense's case. Libby's team might be inclined to want to bring in the kitchen sink related to Rove if they got him on the stand, but that would be dangerous I think. And ostensibly they presumably want Rove to confirm that Libby told him he heard about Plame from Russert. Which would prove nothing except that Libby already had his cover story, if that's indeed what he and Rove discussed on July 11.

Although much is made of Rove's subpoena, I think it's FDL that points out that Isi's "scoop" on the Rove subpoena wasn't all that. Instead perhaps the result of a strategic feeding of the press to divert from the impact of Martin's testimony. Apparently the subpoenas went out to people on the defense witness list months before, this was not a recent event. And again, Rove may or may not be called to the stand. But even when not on the stand he can serve a purpose, the boogeyman and diversion. ;)

I think Walton at the end of Thursday said the defense could file a motion if they wished re: Ari's testimony and he would rule on it. So if the defense still does pursue the question it's open. Guess we'll see. Cathie Martin is still on the stand Monday and then Ari is up after her.

And I'll be at work and won't be able to follow the live play by play on the net. Dang. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. I'm leaning towards Rove never getting on the stand.
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 08:39 PM by Patsy Stone
If you're correct, then I think they had to subpoena him to get what they could from Fitz. Perhaps there is a second line of defense, but it's not Wells' preferred course.

I knew it wasn't a recent event, but it was still nice to see it in print. :)

Maybe someone will answer the question of what that opening statement allows in terms of questioning -- should it ever get to questioning. Also, it might not benefit Fitz to hang Rove now. He may be holding it for...another trial. Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #33
38. Certain people here
should go in on a lottery pool, so in case we win, we can quit our jobs and "follow our bliss": watching the Fates have their way with these criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. One of the more
interesting documents that addressed this was Mr. Fitzgerald's 5-19-06 "Government's Response to Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of His Third Motion to Compel Discovery." I'm not sure if it is in the DU Research forum; if not, folks can google "Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW," and then look for Document 107.

It's an 8-page document, that explains that despite Team Libby's demands for from "the files of (Dick Armitage, Steve Hadley, Bill Harlow, Colin Powell, Karl Rove, and Joseph & Valerie Wilson) -- and others" in order to prepare to examine those witnesses, Mr. Fitzgerald had already delivered more than the required amount of documents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #29
37. This from a old post from last year by Jane at FDL also adds insight.
"Libby's lawyers definitely have different agendas. Cline is the greymail specialist whose strategy depends on Libby's willingness to cast the spotlight on his superiors while Jeffress is the Jim Baker partner who wants to use Libby for a firewall to the higherups. I'm also hearing that Ted Wells -- who would most likely defend Libby in court -- is pushing Scooter to defend himself and not take one for the team.

"Which also has extremely interesting implications for a weakened Cheney -- if Scooter does not believe that Cheney will have the influence to protect him in the end, will he start leaning toward the Cline/Wells strategy? Or are the purse strings of his defense fund -- held by the odious Barbara Comstock -- tied to the maintenance of the firewall?"

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006/02/more-cheney-fallout.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. It's Like FitzG. Called Their Bluff
And he is in a win/win position. He didn't have to call Rove, already got what he needed with those emails, yet if they call Rove, he can then ask all sorts of sticky questions that he already knows the answers to. Lovely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
19. As usual, you've been meticulous and rational.
It's to your credit that the PRODUCT of your efforts stands on its own, relying not at all on your personal credibility or ego. It's an object lesson in objective discourse, imho. Bravo.

It seems clear to me that the WHIG was engaged in a focused exercise of "ideological cleansing" (morally akin to ethnic cleansing), a practice this regime has engaged in within the Executive Branch, K Street, Congress, and the RNC. Anyone not willing to comply and cooperate, without dissent, with this regime's policies and objectives has been eliminated if possible.

The "ideological cleansing" of the CIA, in particular, seems clear. Senior people were replaced and anyone dissenting was gagged, demoted, fired, or reassigned. The CPD was quite obviously the source of much intel that contradicted the fabricated claims of the regime. For some reason, they wouldn't shut up and fall in line. Thus, they destroyed field intel assets associated with Brewster Jennings, interestingly the source of much intel regarding Iran's nuclear programs as well. I think Wilson and Plame were just the ones who were most visible publicly.

This isn't something reserved for the CIA. Scientists have been fired, reassigned and/or gagged in the FDA, the DOE, and the EPA. Anywhere within the vast federal bureaucracy where people weren't complicit or at least subdued and cowed, they've been eliminated. Even in the military, senior officers have been forced out and compliant ideologues have been promoted. Some things can even gag a maggot - and maggots whose tolerance for the bile and garbage was stretched to the breaking point have also been "cleansed."

The incalculable damage to our federal system will take decades to repair, even if it's reparable - which I fear it isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
20. As I read this, a question formed in my mind,
which you then concluded your post with.

In part, I concur with the perspicacious Patsy that perhaps "the incompetence of others" involves using Valerie's name, or mentioning unneeded (for the leak) details about her CIA post. Perhaps Pork Chop had envisioned a non-leak leak, whereby Joe Wilson was compromised because of his wife's employment, without any actual crime being committed (as the RW continues to insist is the case).

However, my alternate theory is this: in Cheneyworld, it's always someone else's fault. As Jon Stewart said, if there were a bull in a china shop, Cheney would blame the china. Given that the larger issue here is turning out to be that Cheney designed and organized this smear, and that Libby was trying to cover that up, Libby's perjury followed inevitably from Cheney's plot, and not from the botched execution of it.

However, Cheney is never at fault (see the recent interview with Blitzer: "Wolf, I reject the premise of your question..."). "The incompetence of others" is likely just the standard Cheney reflex to shift blame elsewhere without necessarily referring to specific mistakes.

Great post title, by the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. It's Not Just Cheney Who Does That, His Sidekick Does Too
In court this week we were told how I Liar sat and looked down at the floor while Cathie Martin was blamed by Hadley for something Libby did. That Libby sat there and later when she was being reamed out by Hadley, didn't say anything then either. That speaks to a pattern of behavior where he and the dick blame everyone else for their behavior. It also points up the cowardice of bullies like them..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Yes, that was a shameful little episode.
That kind of behavior seems to permeate the administration, starting from the top down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #22
32. I Won't Be Surprised To See That Episode Mentioned In FitzG.'s Closing
It goes to the very heart of the character flaws that made I Liar, lie to the GJ and FBI.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Patsy Stone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. That is also a highly likely possibility.
Referring to everyone and no one at the same time. I almost drove off the road (because I was laughing so hard) when I heard the "I reject the premise of your question" line.

The other thing I love, as a total non-sequitur, is that in the middle of this whole thing, Tom Cruise meets with Libby on the day he asks the CIA about Valerie, as well meeting with Armitage on the same day he spilled to Woodward. Tom will be playing Tom in the movie.

Off to the supermarket. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
23. H20 Man I hope you get a book deal
All your hard work should really wind up in a book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
35. First of all, I have to say that this is one of the most uneducated administrations ever.
I really do believe Ari panicked once he realized that Plame's identity had been leaked and that the leaking of her identity might be a crime. I believe he didn't know our country's policy on leaking the identities of CIA agents. I also believe that Rove didn't know either. I do believe they did learn (likely from the WaPo article) that the leaking might be a crime AFTER they had done the leaking and that's when the struggle between the WH and the OVP truly began.

From testimony so far in the I. Liar Libby trial, it seems to me that this whole set of events was triggered by Cheney and his directive(s) to Scooter Libby. From there Libby carries the water (much like Ollie North did for the "Enterprise" in Iran-Contra). He drafts Powell's speech to the UN (which Powell basically trashes). He contacts various departments within the government to obtain more info on the Wilsons. He meets with and gives info on "deep background" to various journalists. He preps Rove on all the information he has gathered and (from what I can see - please tell me if any of you read this wrong), he's directly dictating to most of the major administration departments what Iraq policy is, how Joe Wilson is a threat, and what needs to be done to neutralize the threat of Joe Wilson.

This is astronomical. Though Libby held a dual position in the administration, officially serving both Bush and Cheney, it is CLEAR that is loyalty is to Cheney alone. Various others here at DU have speculated upon the almost unnatural attachment of Libby to Cheney. But back to the astronomical... No matter how many times Bush declares that he is the "decider," there can be no doubt, given testimony so far, that the OVP (Cheney) is the true decider and architect of all Iraq policy - not Team Bush. I could NOT believe when I read that Scooter had actually handed a man of Colin Powell's stature (celebrated veteran to many and Secretary of State) a pre-written speech to give at the UN. It was well-known that Powell (with help from team members like Col. Wilkerson) wrote his own speeches. From CNN in 2005:

Powell's speech, delivered on February 5, 2003, made the case for the war by presenting U.S. intelligence that purported to prove that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Wilkerson says the information in Powell's presentation initially came from a document he described as "sort of a Chinese menu" that was provided by the White House.

"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'" Wilkerson says in the program. "It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."

Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says.

"There was no way the Secretary of State was going to read off a script about serious matters of intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically un-sourced," Wilkerson says.

<snip>

"George actually did call the Secretary, and said, 'I'm really sorry to have to tell you. We don't believe there were any mobile labs for making biological weapons,'" Wilkerson says in the documentary. "This was the third or fourth telephone call. And I think it's fair to say the Secretary and Mr. Tenet, at that point, ceased being close. I mean, you can be sincere and you can be honest and you can believe what you're telling the Secretary. But three or four times on substantive issues like that? It's difficult to maintain any warm feelings."


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

I posted that to illustrate that the reason for the UN fiasco and the destruction of Powell's resignation is sourced to the "White House." And usually, when we hear "White House," we think "Bush." But that's not the case here. We're really talking about the OVP. Which leads one to wonder, what other policies/ideas/actions have been sourced to the "White House" when really, they stem from the OVP? This is part of the tension and internal struggle between Team Bush and Team Cheney (or WH vs. OVP).

Who is running things and what things are they running? Libby knows because he's the one Cheney has trusted with everything. (I would even go so far as to say Cheney esteems Libby higher than Rumsfeld.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #35
41. Some of the best
information on the infamous Powell UN speech is found in James Bamford's "A Pretext for War." In chapter 14, he explains that the WHIG was hoping "for a media spectacular to sell not just the American public but the rest of the skeptical world on the need to go to war with Iraq. The answer was to replay the scene from the 1962 Cuban missile crisis when Kennedy administration UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson confronted his Soviet counterpart in the Security Council over ballistic missiles in Cuba." (page 367)

Bamford goes on to detail how the speech was prepared for Powell by OVP/OSPers; how Powell (and also Armitage) went to the Agency, and found out how flawed the speech was; and the ugly in-fighting that took place when Colin refused to put some of the lies in the speech as the OVP/OSP demanded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. Again, in terms of giving this trial the quality of coverage it deserves--this type of info should
there. The case is as much about the MEDIA as it is about the Administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #41
44. Other Sources Of Good Information
Edited on Mon Jan-29-07 10:24 AM by Me.
You know, even though he gets kicked here around a lot (having done my share of it) Chris Mathews, and David Shuster have been on this story ever since Rove called Mathews and told him that Wilson's wife was fair game. Mathews then called Joe Wilson and told him what Rove said, which I give him huge credit for. But the Plame team of Mathews and Shuster were on the story from that point on. People don't realize it because hardly anyone was paying attention to the it then. Except for Cheney and Libby. As described in court, the veep's office hated what HB reported on this story, so much so they called Russert to complain about the ongoing coverage. There was one other sources of info about this case way back and that was you sir. The Plame threads you inspired in 2004 were sensational and a forerunner (as well as being prescient) of what is happening today. In time others would begin to pay attention. Notably Jane Hamsher of FDL, who wrote some really terrific columns about the story for her site and HuffPo. Thank goodness for all of you, those who kept the story alive until it finally caught on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
36. I'll kick that. - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Olney Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
39. Thanks, H2O Man.
I keep coming back to the "meat-grinder" comment of Cheney's. Would you explain what that means to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
40. Mr. H2O Man, who are you quoting?
:rofl:

:hi:

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
45. Thank you so much
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC