Cheney Interview: Pay2PlayPo Losing Its Ability to Report, Too

picture-113.pngThe WaPay2PlayPo’s Jeffrey Smith is usually a much better reporter than this. In his report on DOJ’s latest attempt to keep the materials from Cheney’s Fitzgerald interview secret–published right under a link to all the evidence released in the trial–Smith "reports,"

A document filed in federal court this week by the Justice Department offers new evidence that former vice president Richard B. Cheney helped steer the Bush administration’s public response to the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s employment by the CIA and that he was at the center of many related administration deliberations.

Which, if you take "new evidence" to mean "a new list summarizing many of the events described in evidence introduced two years ago at the Libby trial," would be factually correct.

But this isn’t.

Barron also listed as exempt from disclosure Cheney’s account of his requests for information from the CIA about the purported purchase; Cheney’s discussions with top officials about the controversy over Bush’s mention of the uranium allegations in his 2003 State of the Union speech; and Cheney’s discussions with deputy I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, press spokesman Ari Fleischer, and Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. "regarding the appropriate response to media inquiries about the source of the disclosure" of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity. [my emphasis]

Smith gets that last bit from this language in the filing.

Vice President’s recollection of discussions with Lewis Libby, the White House Communications Director, and the White House Chief of Staff regarding the appropriate response to media inquiries about the source of the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity as a CIA employee.

gx53201-libby-sonnet.thumbnail.jpgNow, the language used there–"the source of the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity"–ought to be a pretty big clue to Smith that this conversation happened after Plame’s identity was actually made public. That is, after July 14, 2003, which happened to be Ari Fleischer’s last day, meaning it’s pretty clear that Ari Fleischer (who was White House Spokesperson, not Communications Director) isn’t the guy referenced here. But you don’t really need clues like that to figure out that Smith is wrong here. Had Smith only clicked that link above his article and actually looked at the evidence released at trial, he would have seen the famous "meat grinder note," a note Cheney used as a talking point document for conversations with Andy Card (correctly identified by Smith as Chief of Staff) and Dan Bartlett (in his role as "White House Communications Director," the position listed in the filing) in early October 2003 to get them to force Scottie McClellan to exonerate Scooter Libby publicly. 

Has to happen today. 

Call out to key press saying same thing about Scooter as Karl.

Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy the Pres that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.

Perhaps I’m being pedantic, but the news that Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney orchestrated the statement exonerating Libby was a pretty central issue of the trial–and the meat grinder note was a shocking piece of evidence, not least because that crossed out "the Pres" implicated Bush directly. And it was reported in depth again in Scottie McClellan’s book. So it should be fairly clear what this language refers to.

But that’s not the piece of reporting that bugs me most in this article. It’s this bit:

The declaration also said Cheney had helped resolve disputes about "whether to declassify certain information," including portions of a National Intelligence Estimate related to Iraqi weapons programs that Libby leaked to then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller. 

Smith gets this from these two–separate–items listed in the filing.

Page 25, line 39-page 26, line 1: Vice President’s description of his role in resolving disputes about whether to declassify certain information.

Page 26, lines 8-10, 14-17, 24-26: Vice President’s description of government deliberations involving senior officials regarding whether to declassify portions of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.

That is, Cheney’s comments about "resolving disputes about whether to declassify certain information" is treated as totally distinct in David Barron’s declaration from the declassification of the NIE, though it obviously was closely linked in time.

Smith’s conflation of the two is a problem for two reasons. First, it erroneously suggests that Judy Miller was the only one to whom Scooter leaked contents of the NIE; by the time Fitzgerald asked these questions, though, he knew Libby had leaked it to David Sanger and may have leaked it to Andrea Mitchell. As it turned out (though I’m not sure Fitz figured this out until after the indictment), Libby had also leaked the NIE to Bob Woodward, several weeks earlier. And that detail is important because it shows that Libby’s claim–given as an explanation for what Cheney ordered him to leak to Judy–was at least partly bogus.

Smith’s conflation of the two also suggests, falsely, that the NIE was the only thing Libby and Cheney were fighting over declassifying at the time–and squabbling with Tenet about leaking. We know, at a minimum, that they were also declassifying the report from Joe Wilson’s trip; that was formally declassified mid-week the week of the leak, though someone probably named Scooter Libby leaked contents of it to Bob Novak before it was declassified. We also know they were leaking the January 24 excerpt from the NIE to people at the WSJ. Most importantly, we know they were leaking Valerie Wilson’s identity–though I’m not sure whether Fitz had enough evidence by May 8, 2004 to ask Cheney whether he had insta-declassified her identity. 

The entire story of the leak of Plame’s identity is about–obviously–declassifying leaking classified information. Yet Smith conflates details presented in the filing in such a way that recreates precisely the myth that Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney mobilized to cover up their leak. 

I don’t think he’s doing it purposefully. But in his reporting of what is in the Cheney interview, Smith just happens to neutralize the most important questions we know Cheney got asked in this interview.

image_print
  1. WilliamOckham says:

    This is a classic case of valuing the established narrative over facts. The media has a really hard time assimilating new (as in this case, rehashing of old) information when it contradicts the mutally agreed-upon beltway consensus. Even if the new information shows exactly how the political actors played the press to establish the narrative. One more piece of evidence that the DC press corpse really is a zombie who’s last bits of brains were eaten by the Cheney crew. Yuck, I grossed my self out way too early in the morning…

  2. bobschacht says:

    Can’t we just round up the DC press corps, like after one of Robert Gibb’s daily press conferences, and ship them off to someplace to get remedial education in Journalism, with a passing grade required before re-admittance to the White House Press Corps?

    Or maybe force inclusion on their resumes of their journalistic failures?

    Jeebus.

    Bob from HI currently in S.CA

    • phred says:

      Clearly their education didn’t take the first time, so how ’bout we find them jobs at various PR firms (which is the work they know how to do) and leave real journalism to those who actually do it (e.g., Marcy, Spencer, etc.). Meanwhile, the WaHo can register itself as a lobbying firm and then everyone will be on the up and up as to the work they are actually engaged in.

    • PJEvans says:

      I’d favor sending them to someplace out in the weeds, just to watch their heads explode at the thought that DC is not, in fact, the center of the universe for most people in this country.

  3. phred says:

    Maybe Smith and Cheney had a nice dinner at Weymouth’s place to work on the story together ; )

    • Mauimom says:

      Had Smith only clicked that link above his article and actually looked at the evidence released at trial, he would have seen the famous “meat grinder note,”

      I was going to suggest that Smith was tuckered out from trying to decide what to wear to that dinner you reference.

      • phred says:

        If only Smith had borrowed Milbank’s smoking jacket, he might have had more energy to click & read ; )

  4. AZ Matt says:

    I wonder why Smith didn’t interview Marcy Wheeler before submitting his story. I am sure she could have explained it to him. She could have lent him a copy of Anatomy of Deceit.

    • skdadl says:

      Perzackly! I would never publish a word on this story without interviewing EW. By now, I should think that even Fitz feels that way.

  5. BoxTurtle says:

    This is NOT the quality of story they want to be publishing right after the pay to play note came out.

    Perhaps their newsroom is in a bit of disarray.

    Boxturtle (It’s tough when you’re used to running everything by the publisher for “slant” checks)

  6. perris says:

    from your previous post on this matter;

    Vice President’s recollection of discussions with Lewis Libby, the White House Communications Director, and the White House Chief of Staff regarding the appropriate response to media inquiries about the source of the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity as a CIA employee.

    Vice President’s description of his role in resolving disputes about whether to declassify certain information.

    it was this part of the interview that took Fitz off criminal charges concerning exposing national assets by anyone, including libby and cheney…that’s the turning point right there

    the vice president asserted his pixie dust;

    “I am the vice president, given authority by the president, to de-classify at will, on the fly, at my discretion if I believe there is a national security concern”

    to which Fitz had absolutely no method to defend against said claim and insure himself a victory, rather then put the country through the stress and then failing he went for the easy kill, lying to grand jury…to me not the best solution at all

    it was during this time that Cheney went on his treason tour, telling everyone he did indeed have the right to expose national assets on the fly at will

    this is Chaney’s m.o.

    when he knows he is exposed or about to be exposed he goes on tour in a pre-emptive strike against said exposure, therefore inoculating himself from that crime

    it worked incredibly well before Fitz, Fitz was played by Cheney, much to my chagrin since I believe Fitz a genius and Cheney a moron, I am sad to see this is what happened but I from my recollection of Fitz’s statement it did

    so since his treason tour worked so well, when confronted with war crimes he figured he would give the torture tour a go

    and that worked even better then his treason tour

    he’s getting better at his crime tour strategy

  7. BoxTurtle says:

    Cheney a moron

    Anyone who assumes that is going to be horribly shocked. Cheney is a pure washington insider, he knows more about how to work the federal bureaucracy than anyone. He’s sneaky, amoral, and has “friends” in every important office.

    If you think he’s a moron, explain how he’s managed to keep himself from being indicted when there’s enough information already public on torture, treason, wiretapping and war crimes to keep a Grand Jury busy for more than a year.

    Boxturtle (You may hold your enemy in contempt, but NEVER underestimate him)

    • perris says:

      I think someone who has failed at everything he’s done is a moron

      the fact that he aligns himself with sociopaths in power is what has kept him out of jail, an unhappy circumstance of his socciopathy, not a result of any level of inteligence

      • BoxTurtle says:

        The only things he’s really wanted but hasn’t got is a war with Iran and a full pardon for Scooter.

        Before you call him a failure, ask what his goals were…and are.

        He’s build an imperial presidency and Obama is backing him.
        The Oil companies were VERY profitable under BushCo.
        Halliburton did well, too.
        He implemented Torture and has Obama protecting him from those actions.
        He hasn’t been indicted for ANYTHING!

        If he was trying to improve the country, he’s an EPIC fail. But that was never his goal.

        Boxturtle (Sociopaths of the world, unite!)

        • Petrocelli says:

          I agree with you … Cheney’s Presidency was a great success for his true purpose. I don’t think Cheney really wanted a Libby pardon because a pardoned Libby might have gotten dragged before a hearing and cause Bush & Cheney a lot of trouble with his illuminating testimony.

          Cheney’s only failure is that he could not Ensure™ McCain’s victory, which would have continued the Neocon’s perpetual War.

        • perris says:

          when I say failure, I mean, “did he succeed in anything but breaking things”

          no

          your answer is that he broke things quite well, to this I agree but all that takes is a sociopath, it takes not a shred of intelligence

          at breaking things Cheney is clearly successful but that doesn’t give any reason to believe there is intelligence involved

          in my opinion, anyone who is studied in the Leo Strauss school of sociopathy can be quite successful in breaking things regardless their level of intelligence

    • Stephen says:

      I also believe he is guilty of conspiring to whack, hit, snuff, eliminate, etc., etc., all the while being one of the most dangerous enemies of the State, The Constitution and The American People. Get with it Obama, times a wastin.

  8. AZ Matt says:

    OT (somewhat) – From Jason Leopold Eager to Tap Iraq’s Vast Oil Reserves, Industry Execs Suggested Invasion

    Two years before the invasion of Iraq, oil executives and foreign policy advisers told the Bush administration that the United States would remain “a prisoner of its energy dilemma” as long as Saddam Hussein was in power.

    That April 2001 report, “Strategic Policy Challenges for the 21st Century,” was prepared by the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy and the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations at the request of then-Vice President Dick Cheney.

    • Rayne says:

      Oh thanks for that, Matt! Nice work that Jason is closing up the other end of the loop, the one at the very forward edge of this mess.

      The document he points to, “Strategic Policy Challenges for the 21st Century,” must have been the culmination of the Energy Task Force.

      What we don’t have are the docs between Bush/Cheney’s inauguration and this April 2001 report which FourthBranch Cheney fought tooth and nail to keep out of the public’s grasp, which would have incriminated all the petrochemical players in the earliest planning of preemptive war on Iraq.

      • Rayne says:

        Whoa. Leopold’s reporting means there’s a bunch more cross-checking to do WRT to Council on Foreign Relations, Baker Institute and the Energy Task Force.

        Especially note the timing: while the so-called Independent Task Force was working on this report in advance of its April 2001 publication, Enron was tightening the screws on energy contracts, particularly in California.

        ALL of the assumptions in this report are colored and shaped by the conditions set up by Enron, whose CEO was a participant in Cheney’s Energy Task Force.

        If the Baker Institute/CFR report was intended as a Team B report to Cheney’s Team A, it failed miserably because it was not, could not be independent.

        If it was the ONLY report and was a direct result of the work of the Energy Task Force, it is the product of manipulation from the get-go as all assumptions were based on facts generated by an Enron-influenced marketplace.

        We went to war for this kind of crap, tortured people because of it, soiled our good name.

  9. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Cheney considers himself a grand master of bureaucratic intrigue. In many respects, that’s correct, though it’s not inevitable that his machinations incur no consequence. That’s within the control of Mr. Obama, although since Mr. Obama vastly prefers making decisions that diffract rather than elicit conflict, Cheney may have his way with this president, too.

    After first throwing a blanket of secrecy over the workings of the entire federal government, the next thing Mr. Cheney attacked was the bureaucracy. He had his small inner circle (Addington, Libby) and his larger, bureaucracy-wide patronage network (Wolfowitz, Bolton, Yoo). The rest of the bureaucracy was either trying to curry favor with his moles in their organization (Gonzales – too slow and weak to be in the first two categories), or it was trying to stay out of the line of fire and not have to look for a job because they were doing their job rather than getting with Mr. Big’s unconstitutional assumption of power.

    Mr. Big knew that everything in his Cheney’s ego-sized safe that he couldn’t first burn or shred would be subject to disclosure. With that in mind, his “meat grinder” note has that line-through implicating the “Pres” in Libby’s conduct. If that had been a material mistake that conflicted with protecting his work, first, or the president, second, he would have destroyed it and left another one. He didn’t, which means he intended to implicate the president and absolve himself, something EW has brought out before.

    Pity that our constitutional lawyer president is still letting him do it.

  10. Petrocelli says:

    In case some of you are traveling later today or will be away tomorrow, I’d like to take this time to wish you all Happy Independence Day !

    America’s honor requires the great work of true patriots like you and it is an honor to know you

  11. Mauimom says:

    And re the pay-to-play dinners, I’m starting to think Intrepid Investigative Reporter Howie Kurtz may have figured out this was a great idea and run to Katherine Weymouth to suggest it after his experience in April with Rahm:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..02297.html

  12. Ann in AZ says:

    Blue Texan’s regularly scheduled 10:30 post is up and ready on the front page: “At Texas Tea Party, Joe The Plumber Recommends Forced Deportation of Immigrants”

  13. JasonLeopold says:

    Rayne@29 if you happen to notice anything in your own research that doesn’t square with what I reported or if there is anything in my report you notice that is incorrect or miniterpreted perhaps you can let me know and I will correct it and give you credit for it. I realize this issue is not ”new” per se (war for oil) but I think it offers a new perspective on things knowing what we know now and the information that has surfaced.

  14. rhfactor says:

    Marcy, please record this story & commentary/analysis to VIDEO and get it onto YouTube. It’s really important that you extend your media of choice in publishing. The Libby Trial reporting you did outside the courthouse was the best thing I have ever seen from the Progressive Movement. You’re long overdue for recording regularly on video and publishing to YouTube… whether on your own Emptywheel News Channel, or as a featured reporter for an established channel… for example how Josh Marshall initially recorded daily commentary for the funded channel “Veracifier”.

    Yes, this is the same pestering nudging I gave you at YearlyKos II in Chicago. But it’s because you are a natural.. and gifted. Let your audience extend beyond the “already progressive” people. Your voice needs to penetrate the mainstream. your pal,

    rhfactor