Will Libby lead to downfall of Cheney?

So I'm doing a little 'clicking and of course get to pass through the minefield that is that of liberal blogs. Piles upon piles of them of course (though, hmm, I thought that blogs were tools of the VRC - vast rightwing conspiracy - and not of the mainstream, but I digress). Many with gleeful headlines and new entries about the downfall of Libby, and how this is just the beginning.

One (the name doesn't matter, much like the DU site, you can't swing an electronic pen without hitting one of them) has ponderings about how this is just the start that will lead to Cheney. Cheney will be taken down, as Libby is just a small fish, and Cheney is the big one that Fitzgerald was really after.

I'm gonna call B.S. on those theories here and now. Regardless of what wishful thinking any of the liberals out there wish to engage in, I think if Fitzgerald had anything else to use, it would be out there now. Yeah, he has the opportunity to go before another grand jury. "The jury is still open" (technically), but for all intents and purposes, much like Martha Stewart, the case is over and done. Fitzgerald has one fall guy, and only one fall guy, to hang for the outting of Valerie Plame. (Though he could just as easily have taken Joe Wilson, and Ms. Plame herself as the ones that gave up her history.)

He has I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Libby will take the fall, or perhaps never even have to. Not because he'll be pardoned for the crime (which may yet happen if he were found guilty), but because Libby knows the game that is being played here. He knows that even if someone else is guilty, that bigger fish, so to say, that the end result must not, can not, and never will be that anyone other than one sacrificial lamb will go down for the event.

Even if Libby were offered immunity tomorrow in exchange for testifying against his boss or anyone else in the administration, it's pretty obvious that he won't do it. He'll become a martyr, go off professing his innocence, and claiming this was all part of a witch hunt. He'll head off into the sunset not to be heard from again until years later when a book on his experience in the White House and his time as the fall guy of an administration can be written and sold.

Some may believe I'm wrong. Many may hope I'm wrong (many of the DU crowd apparently would hope so), but I think they are fooling themselves if they think otherwise. But that's just my opinion and I could be... nah. Not gonna happen. Mark my words.
6,072 views 27 replies
Reply #1 Top
Did anyone else notice that out of all the indictments handed down, "Outing" Valarie Plame wasn't one of them? After 2 years of investigating, it seems strange that there was not one mention of the actual purpose of the investigations when the "big day" happens. ROFL

What a JOKE!!
Reply #2 Top
Indictments!!!??? the greatest diversionary tactic in politics, where is Sheehan, the war, the hurricanes, Miers, gas prices, etc.etc. Thousands of dollars later and hours of time spent and then a pardon. And has anyone noticed that those who gets in trouble has crutches in his trunk? What a travesty.
Reply #3 Top
He knows that even if someone else is guilty, that bigger fish, so to say, that the end result must not, can not, and never will be that anyone other than one sacrificial lamb will go down for the event.


must not?? a lil lack of ethics never hurt anyone i guess.
Reply #4 Top
After 2 years of investigating, it seems strange that there was not one mention of the actual purpose of the investigations when the "big day" happens. ROFL


five words, ted: alger hiss richard nixon wikipedia.
Reply #5 Top
What about the very real possibility that there is no more "there" there? It has not been established that a crime occurred, only that Fitzgerald has convinced his grand jury that one may have been committed. His rhetoric at the press conference was deplorable, more like a judge pronouncing a sentence, using the national security card to make the offense seem more serious when national security had nothing to do with the charges he brought.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #6 Top

five words, ted: alger hiss richard nixon wikipedia.

one word.  Irrelevant.

Reply #7 Top

But Terp, as for your question. Libby can sing like a canary, and it will not matter. But he will not, and the DU.idiots will scream coverup for a non-crime.

Where were they when Clinton was the target.  Selective amnesia!

Reply #8 Top
Not to sidetrack this too far, but can any of you imagine the pressure that grand jury was under to produce something for their 2 years of indentured servitude? It's difficult for me to imagine that after 2 years they would deliberate and come to the conclusion that "Fitzgerald hasn't shown us shit." This is particularly true when Fitzgerald knew within 10 minutes that the law suspected of being broken had not been. He spent the remaining 2 years conducting interrogations just to manufacture charges for something.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #9 Top
What a JOKE!!


No, it's NOT a joke. Lying before a federal grand jury wasn't a joke when Clinton did it, and it's NOT a joke now...especially when the liar happens to be experienced in law (as were BOTH Clinton and Libby).

The "outing" of Valerie Plame may well go down as one of the biggest NON stories of this administration, but IF Libby lied before a grand jury and IF it can be proven, it IS a serious offense.
Reply #10 Top
No, it's NOT a joke. Lying before a federal grand jury wasn't a joke when Clinton did it, and it's NOT a joke now...especially when the liar happens to be experienced in law (as were BOTH Clinton and Libby).

The "outing" of Valerie Plame may well go down as one of the biggest NON stories of this administration, but IF Libby lied before a grand jury and IF it can be proven, it IS a serious offense.


I agree here. I believe Clinton should have been nailed to the wall when he did it, so should Libby (or Rove if it gets that far). But only, if he is found guilty.

Don't get me wrong, Joe Wilson did more to nationally advertise his wife's job then any one other person. IMO no law was broken before Libby‘s testimony. But just because no law was original broken, does not make it right to give false testimony.

PS: I also don’t like those who hide behind leak statues either.
Reply #11 Top
IMO no law was broken before Libby‘s testimony. But just because no law was original broken, does not make it right to give false testimony.


I agree with you here, Lee, except that "giving false testimony" is a tough prosecution when you are asking someone to recall detailed timelines of events and conversations from a year or more prior, particularly someone whose days are jammed with literally hundreds of such events and conversations, especially without benefit of counsel. The burden of proof will be on the prosecutor to show he "knowingly and willfully" gave false testimony. It may be easy to show that his recollection of events was incorrect and to therefore indict him on basis that his testimony was inconsistent with a subsequently established time sequence, but difficult to prove he meant to deliberately mislead the grand jury, especially when there is no particular motive to do so if no law had been broken in the course of the events and conversations he was asked to recall. I would not bet the farm on a conviction.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #12 Top
I would not bet the farm on a conviction.


I'm not going to bet on this one. But it is the jury who will untimely decide.

I just get tried of seeing the Democrats dancing with glee thinking this is some great down fall or proof of some indication about WMD lies. Which IMO it is neither. But they will try and do their forty degrees of separation thing.
Reply #13 Top
ParaTed2k

The reason no one has been charged with the law intended to prevent outing of CIA agents is not because Rove and Libby and maby others did not do just that. It is because the law is so complex, they can not be applied. Make no mistake, Mrs Wilson's status as a CIA Agent and the uncovering of the firm used for them to operate has been compermised. We have spent millions of dollare on this case because Rove , Libby and possibly other high ranking Bush staffers can not keep their mouths closed about our Spy members. Give me one good reason why they should be telling reporters about our CIA Agents? They did it to get at Amb. Wilson for his Op ED that questioned the Iraq War.
Reply #14 Top
No, it's NOT a joke. Lying before a federal grand jury wasn't a joke when Clinton did it, and it's NOT a joke now...especially when the liar happens to be experienced in law (as were BOTH Clinton and Libby).


NO, lying under oath is NOT a Joke at all, and if Libby did lie then let the legal and political chips fall where they may. However, the subject at hand is not lying, it is "outting" Valerie Plame.

I don't know the CIA policies and procedures concerning a comprimised covert agent, but I have seen what happens when a special ops soldier is comprimised... and no the comprimised troop doesn't end up with cover stories in "news" magazines. In fact, everything that is done following the comprimise is done to minimize the effects of the exposure.

If Valerie Plame was covert, then her actions following her outing has done more to threaten the lives of anyone she has served with than merely "outing" her. Futhermore, the security training I've been through taught me that even if I read or see classified information leaked (such as in a movie or book), that doesn't give me the right to talk about it. Apparently Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson and everyone else with a clearance connected with them slept through that part of the briefings. ;~D

My guess is that she never was covert... in fact, from what I have seen, I'd be surprised if her security clearance went very far above Top Secret with SCI access.
Reply #15 Top
The reason no one has been charged with the law intended to prevent outing of CIA agents is not because Rove and Libby and maby others did not do just that. It is because the law is so complex,


A: Did Anyone know her "covert" status with the CIA?

B: You know as well as I do what happens in the military if a covert troop is comprimised. Do they show up on cover stories of "news" magazines? Last I checked, showing up in a news article was considered a comprimise.

C: If she was "covert", wasn't she putting the lives of everyone she has ever been seen with on a mission in jeopardy?

D: You also know as well as I (probably even better) that blown cover is NOT an excuse to discuss classified information with the press. Valerie Plame used her "blown cover" as an excuse to let her picture be plastered all over the press. Is that your understanding of how comprimised agents and information is to be handled... Is that how you would handle it Colonel?

The law isn't that complex, if an actual comprimise occured. However, if a comprimise has to be trumped up, then the law is very complex.
Reply #16 Top
The reason no one has been charged with the law intended to prevent outing of CIA agents is not because Rove and Libby and maby others did not do just that. It is because the law is so complex, they can not be applied.


Bullshit. Fitzgerald either had evidence they broke the law or he didn't. The law prohibits knowingly disclosing the name of a covert agent with intent to do harm to the interests of the United States. Fitzgerald was unable to convince his grand jury, after two years of trying, that any of those conditions existed. The only thing he could do was trip up Libby on his memory of events. Total crock if you ask me. If Fitzgerald were intellectually honest and politically neutral, he would have returned a no bill.

One of the principal authors of the non-disclosure law, Victoria Toensing, has publicly and emphatically stated that, based on the information leaked and publicly disclosed, no crime defined in that law was committed by Libby or Rove or anyone else in the Administration. In fact, she strongly suspects the whole Wilson business was a CYA action orchestrated by a person or persons in the CIA from the gitgo, intended to hedge the intelligence assessments that WMD were indeed present or imminently available in Iraq. I don't know that I can buy that notion, but it's certainly not beyond belief.

I just get tried of seeing the Democrats dancing with glee thinking this is some great down fall or proof of some indication about WMD lies. Which IMO it is neither. But they will try and do their forty degrees of separation thing.


Lee, you nailed it. The Bush-haters will connect anything to "Bush lied about WMD" which is complete horse manure itself.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #17 Top
I guess the CIA are Democrats. They believe this was a serious matter. They went to the Justice Dept. Look at what Powell has to day about the WMD BS.



Powell Admits False WMD Claim
by David Corn, The Nation, May 18, 2004

It would be a foolish endeavor to call for this Republican Congress to mount a thorough investigation of this Republican administration. But what else is there to do in response to the comments made by Secretary of State Colin Powell this past weekend?

Appearing on Meet the Press, Powell acknowledged--finally!--that he and the Bush administration misled the nation about the WMD threat posed by Iraq before the war. Specifically, he said that he was wrong when he appeared before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, and alleged that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons. That was one of the more dramatic claims he and the administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. (Remember the drawings he displayed.) Yet Powell said on MTP, "it turned our that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading." Powell did not spell it out, but the main source for this claim was an engineer linked to the Iraqi National Congress, the exile group led by Ahmed Chalabi, who is now part of the Iraqi Governing Council.

Powell noted that he was "comfortable at the time that I made the presentation it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community." In other words, the CIA was scammed by Chalabi's outfit, and it never caught on. So who's been fired over this? After all, the nation supposedly went to war partly due to this intelligence. And partly because of this bad information over 700 Americans and countless Iraqis have lost their lives. Shouldn't someone be held accountable? Maybe CIA chief George Tenet, or his underlings who went for the bait? Or Chalabi's neocon friends and champions at the Pentagon: Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle? How do they feel about their pal, the great Iraqi leader, now?

For months after the invasion, George W. Bush told the public that he had based his decision to invade Iraq on "good, solid intelligence." Does he still believe that? Has anyone told him that his government was hornswoggled by Chalabi, who was once convicted of massive bank fraud in Jordan. (Since Bush has said he does not read the newspapers or pay much attention to conventional media, he may not have heard about Powell's remarks unless an aide bothered to brief him on them.) And in January, Dick Cheney said that there was "conclusive evidence" that Saddam Hussein had manufactured bioweapons labs on wheels. Is he willing to say he was wrong?

For his part, Chalabi has not shown any regret. In February, he told the London Telegraph, "we are heroes in error....As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important."

Perhaps not for him. But Powell--fronting for Bush--placed his credibility on the line before the war. A Powell associate told The New York Times that Powell is "out there publicly saying this now because he doesn't want a legacy as the man who made up stories to provide the president with cover to go to war." But if Powell did not make up the stories himself, he was none too reluctant to peddle them. And he has displayed little outrage in public that he was turned into a fibbing pimp for the war.

In fact, at the time of his UN presentation, there was reason for Powell and the administration to be suspicious of the claims Powell were hurling. After his UN speech, several experts in the field of bioweapons said that it was possible for Hussein to develop mobile bioweapons labs but not likely that he could. "This strikes me as a bit far-fetched," observed Raymond Zilinskas, a former weapons inspector. Why did Powell and the CIA trust the word of a biased source that could not be confirmed more than the expertise of independent scientists? The answer is all too obvious. (There were plenty of other problems with Powell's UN performance. For instance, he maintained that one Iraqi military official had ordered another to "clean out" an ammunition site that was about to be inspected; but the official translation of this intercepted conversation, which was posted on the State Department website, did not contain that order. Powell also claimed there was a direct and close connection between Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist operating in northern Iraq, which was an area outside of Baghdad's control. But Powell provided sketchy evidence regarding what is probably a complicated, perhaps even competitive, relationship and one that apparently had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.)

On Meet the Press, Powell said of the bioweapons claim, "I am disappointed and I regret it." But that's not good enough. Powell provided cover for Bush's case for war. And he's still providing cover for the Bush administration overall. Why is he not angrily calling for an inquiry into how Chalibi flim-flammed the CIA and the administration? Why is Powell sticking around and helping Bush get reelected, when it's expected he will resign after that and leave the public with an administration that is not moderated (to the extent that it is) by the presence of this presumably sage grown-up?

Think about it. The secretary of state revealed that he, the CIA and the administration were conned (perhaps too easily) by exiles supported by the Pentagon, and this fraud helped set the stage for a war and a bloody and difficult occupation that still is claiming the lives of Americans. If this is not cause for investigations, dismissals, and angry statements from congressional leaders and administration officials, then what is?

DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! The Washington Post says, "This is a fierce polemic, but it is based on an immense amount of research....t does present a serious case for the president's partisans to answer....Readers can hardly avoid drawing...troubling conclusions from Corn's painstaking indictment." The Los Angeles Times says, "David Corn's The Lies of George W. Bush is as hard-hitting an attack as has been leveled against the current president. He compares what Bush said with the known facts of a given situation and ends up making a persuasive case." The Library Journal says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations....Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." For more information and a sample, check out the official website: www.bushlies.com
Reply #18 Top
I guess the CIA are Democrats. They believe this was a serious matter. They went to the Justice Dept. Look at what Powell has to say about the WMD BS.



Powell Admits False WMD Claim
by David Corn, The Nation, May 18, 2004

It would be a foolish endeavor to call for this Republican Congress to mount a thorough investigation of this Republican administration. But what else is there to do in response to the comments made by Secretary of State Colin Powell this past weekend?

Appearing on Meet the Press, Powell acknowledged--finally!--that he and the Bush administration misled the nation about the WMD threat posed by Iraq before the war. Specifically, he said that he was wrong when he appeared before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, and alleged that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories to produce biological weapons. That was one of the more dramatic claims he and the administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. (Remember the drawings he displayed.) Yet Powell said on MTP, "it turned our that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading." Powell did not spell it out, but the main source for this claim was an engineer linked to the Iraqi National Congress, the exile group led by Ahmed Chalabi, who is now part of the Iraqi Governing Council.

Powell noted that he was "comfortable at the time that I made the presentation it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community." In other words, the CIA was scammed by Chalabi's outfit, and it never caught on. So who's been fired over this? After all, the nation supposedly went to war partly due to this intelligence. And partly because of this bad information over 700 Americans and countless Iraqis have lost their lives. Shouldn't someone be held accountable? Maybe CIA chief George Tenet, or his underlings who went for the bait? Or Chalabi's neocon friends and champions at the Pentagon: Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle? How do they feel about their pal, the great Iraqi leader, now?

For months after the invasion, George W. Bush told the public that he had based his decision to invade Iraq on "good, solid intelligence." Does he still believe that? Has anyone told him that his government was hornswoggled by Chalabi, who was once convicted of massive bank fraud in Jordan. (Since Bush has said he does not read the newspapers or pay much attention to conventional media, he may not have heard about Powell's remarks unless an aide bothered to brief him on them.) And in January, Dick Cheney said that there was "conclusive evidence" that Saddam Hussein had manufactured bioweapons labs on wheels. Is he willing to say he was wrong?

For his part, Chalabi has not shown any regret. In February, he told the London Telegraph, "we are heroes in error....As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important."

Perhaps not for him. But Powell--fronting for Bush--placed his credibility on the line before the war. A Powell associate told The New York Times that Powell is "out there publicly saying this now because he doesn't want a legacy as the man who made up stories to provide the president with cover to go to war." But if Powell did not make up the stories himself, he was none too reluctant to peddle them. And he has displayed little outrage in public that he was turned into a fibbing pimp for the war.

In fact, at the time of his UN presentation, there was reason for Powell and the administration to be suspicious of the claims Powell were hurling. After his UN speech, several experts in the field of bioweapons said that it was possible for Hussein to develop mobile bioweapons labs but not likely that he could. "This strikes me as a bit far-fetched," observed Raymond Zilinskas, a former weapons inspector. Why did Powell and the CIA trust the word of a biased source that could not be confirmed more than the expertise of independent scientists? The answer is all too obvious. (There were plenty of other problems with Powell's UN performance. For instance, he maintained that one Iraqi military official had ordered another to "clean out" an ammunition site that was about to be inspected; but the official translation of this intercepted conversation, which was posted on the State Department website, did not contain that order. Powell also claimed there was a direct and close connection between Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist operating in northern Iraq, which was an area outside of Baghdad's control. But Powell provided sketchy evidence regarding what is probably a complicated, perhaps even competitive, relationship and one that apparently had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.)

On Meet the Press, Powell said of the bioweapons claim, "I am disappointed and I regret it." But that's not good enough. Powell provided cover for Bush's case for war. And he's still providing cover for the Bush administration overall. Why is he not angrily calling for an inquiry into how Chalibi flim-flammed the CIA and the administration? Why is Powell sticking around and helping Bush get reelected, when it's expected he will resign after that and leave the public with an administration that is not moderated (to the extent that it is) by the presence of this presumably sage grown-up?

Think about it. The secretary of state revealed that he, the CIA and the administration were conned (perhaps too easily) by exiles supported by the Pentagon, and this fraud helped set the stage for a war and a bloody and difficult occupation that still is claiming the lives of Americans. If this is not cause for investigations, dismissals, and angry statements from congressional leaders and administration officials, then what is?

DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! The Washington Post says, "This is a fierce polemic, but it is based on an immense amount of research....t does present a serious case for the president's partisans to answer....Readers can hardly avoid drawing...troubling conclusions from Corn's painstaking indictment." The Los Angeles Times says, "David Corn's The Lies of George W. Bush is as hard-hitting an attack as has been leveled against the current president. He compares what Bush said with the known facts of a given situation and ends up making a persuasive case." The Library Journal says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations....Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." For more information and a sample, check out the official website: www.bushlies.com
Reply #19 Top
No, the CIA aren't democrats or republicans, they are a bunch of people who are either or none, just like every other organization. However, if the outing of Plame was such a crime, why was she allowed to appear in cover stories and talk shows? If she had ever been covert, then her face in the public eye would put every agent she ever served with in jeopardy. They would all be pulled from covert duty and placed under protection. But that isn't what happened is it. Valerie Plame has acted like a prom queen, not a comprimised inteligence asset. Which tells me she probably was never a covert asset to begin with.
Reply #20 Top
Gene -

See Ted above. And good luck re-writing history.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #21 Top
guess the CIA are Democrats. They believe this was a serious matter. They went to the Justice Dept. Look at what Powell has to day about the WMD BS.


Hey clueless one....Just how in the hell did we get from Libby/Rove to WMD's? Please stay on at least a semblance of the original topic or shut up.
Reply #22 Top
No, the CIA aren't democrats or republicans, they are a bunch of people who are either or none, just like every other organization. However, if the outing of Plame was such a crime, why was she allowed to appear in cover stories and talk shows? If she had ever been covert, then her face in the public eye would put every agent she ever served with in jeopardy. They would all be pulled from covert duty and placed under protection. But that isn't what happened is it. Valerie Plame has acted like a prom queen, not a comprimised inteligence asset. Which tells me she probably was never a covert asset to begin with.


She may have been at one time or another, but NOT now and NOT within the past 6-7 years!
Reply #23 Top
drmiler

This is about WMD and the OP Ed that Amb. Wilson wrote that created this outing. Do you think this would have taken place if Amb. Wilson had not opposed the Bush policy in Iraq? When ever someone does not agree with Bush, the White House attackes them or changes the subject. They never address the actual objection. It was just like Myers, acceept it because Bush says so. Note how much that looks like a Dictatorship!
Reply #24 Top
Did anyone else notice that out of all the indictments handed down, "Outing" Valarie Plame wasn't one of them? After 2 years of investigating, it seems strange that there was not one mention of the actual purpose of the investigations when the "big day" happens. ROFL


Exactly.


This is about WMD and the OP Ed that Amb. Wilson wrote that created this outing. Do you think this would have taken place if Amb. Wilson had not opposed the Bush policy in Iraq? When ever someone does not agree with Bush, the White House attackes them or changes the subject. They never address the actual objection. It was just like Myers, acceept it because Bush says so. Note how much that looks like a Dictatorship!


Here you go with your dictator bs again. The person that created this "outing" was Wilson himself. He has shown to be a fraud just like your posts.
Reply #25 Top
I have it on good word that plame was outted by HOWARD DEAN, and went into a conspiricy with reporters to shift the blame on the Bush whitehouse, it's all a democratic plot to take the whitehouse down { How's that for a conspiricy theory?}