Hung Out to Dry: One Former VP Chief of Staff

HangingScooterOutToDryIf I were Scooter Libby right now, I’d be seething. I’d be utterly disgusted with the way Dick Cheney hung me out to dry, over and over and over, in his interview with Fitzgerald. Cheney denies any knowledge of issues he and Libby worked on together repeatedly and he denies that his own orders and instructions had anything to do with activities that ultimately (though Cheney of course didn’t admit this) ended up outing Valerie Wilson.

There are three general categories of information about which Cheney hangs Libby out to dry.

These are:

Oppo research conducted during week of June 9, 2003

While not asked directly, Cheney pretended to know nothing about Libby being tasked to collect information on the Wilsons starting the week June 9, 2003. Cheney claimed not to remember the document dump he received on June 9, 2003, compiled by John Hannah. (7) He went on to claim that he might not have seen Wilson’s trip report until after Wilson’s op-ed. (9) But not only did he receive a briefing on this material, but he was trying to get that information released even before the op-ed came out.

Cheney further claimed “he is unaware of anyone in the administration conducting any research or completing a research project on either Joe Wilson or his wife. He advised that he never directed anyone on his staff to conduct such a project and no one advised him they were working on one.” (13) Of course, Libby kept a Wilson folder during the leak period and into the investigative period. Cheney, I guess, claims he knew nothing about that.

This allows Cheney to disconnect his own research at CIA (and elsewhere, probably) into Wilson’s trip from Libby’s activities. While Cheney admitted to having learned of Plame from Tenet (note, I have reasons to doubt this was his only source), he denied discussing Plame with Libby. (13) Yet, Libby reminded Cheney–in October 2003–that there was a note reflecting Cheney informing Libby of Plame’s identity, so not only should Cheney have remembered the event itself, but he should have remembered the reminder.

And Cheney downplayed his involvement in responding to Walter Pincus’ questions about Wilson the week of June 9. “[A]ny press inquiries about the trip that may have been made by Walter Pincus in preparation for his June 2003 article … would have gone to either Libby or Cathie Martin.” (4) However, Cheney and Libby and Martin met on June 11, 2003 at 1:05PM about Pincus’ requests, and from that meeting called Robert Grenier, ostensibly for a first explanation about how the trip had been generated (though at that point both Libby and Cheney almost surely knew of Plame’s identity). Cheney went on to claim he could not remember discussing Plame with Cathie Martin, nor remember Martin telling him that she had learned of Plame’s identity. (11)

Now, frankly, Libby himself never admitted how goal-oriented his actions were during this week. He downplayed the importance of a note, from first thing that Monday morning and just hours after Condi got beat up on ABC News, reflecting learning of Bush’s concern about Wilson’s allegations. Libby himself claimed to have forgotten being told three times that week of Plame’s identity. And Libby also didn’t explain that he and Cheney–at a time when they almost certainly knew of Plame’s identity–called CIA to re-learn it for Cathie Martin’s benefit. So to some extent, Cheney’s denials may help Libby here. And Cheney may be feigning ignorance to protect his sources of Plame’s identity–who are likely not limited (as Cheney claims) to George Tenet. And, if Bush did order Libby to take the lead on this, then Cheney’s forgetfulness may protect Bush here.

Libby’s interactions with journalists, especially during Leak Week

Then there are Cheney’s denials of any knowledge of events from Leak Week–including events that he ordered himself.

Cheney denied making inquiries about Wilson’s contractual relationship with the CIA (a subject that may pertain to a 1999 AQ Khan trip Wilson took), though he did say “someone else might have made such an inquiry.” (13-14). Of course, Libby did make such an inquiry–at a minimum, of David Addington. But he did so on the instructions of Dick Cheney.

Cheney claimed he wasn’t closely involved in Libby’s response to journalists during leak week and before. “He stated that Libby was not required to clear every public statement and press contact because the Vice President had confidence in Libby’s abilities and experience in handling such inquiries. …. He had no specific recollection of any reporters being talked to by Scooter Libby prior to July 14.” (14) Of course, Libby’s notes show Cheney was directing much of this coverage directly, most notably with the Judy Miller meeting and on July 12.

Cheney then claimed he “was not aware of any attempts by Libby to complain to Tim Russert about Chris Matthews’ coverage” (14; the redactions hide references to Matthews and Russert). But Libby had told Cheney of this conversation in October 2003, if not contemporaneously, and Matalin had advised Libby to go to Russert.

Cheney claims to have no memory of directing Libby’s contacts with journalists on July 12, though in this context and in contradiction with earlier statements, he suddenly admitted to sometimes consulting with Libby on such subjects. “Though he cannot recall any specific conversation, he would not be surprised to learn that he had such a discussion with his Chief of Staff. The Vice President advised that he sees Libby several times each day and the two have previously discussed communication strategies for responding to questions from particular journalists.” (18) Just after Cheney claimed not to have directed Libby’s actions, Fitzgerald asked him to read from Libby’s very detailed notes of Cheney’s dictated talking points. Oops.

Even after receiving that document, Cheney blamed Libby for the on the record and deep background instructions in the notes he dictated Libby to use with journalists. “Mr. Libby alone would be the judge of whether or not information was to be presented to any reporters with that caveat [deep background]. … Any decisions about whether Libby, when talking to the media, provides information ‘on the record’ or ‘on background’ are made by Libby himself.” (19-20) Yet, at least according to Libby, Cheney was the one directing what should be on the record and what should be deep background.

Most egregious of these “lapses” in memory, though, is Cheney’s claim to know nothing about Judy Miller. “The Vice President does not recall any member of his staff, including Scooter Libby, meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller during the week of 7/7/03, just after publication of Joe Wilson’s editorial in the New York Times.” Libby has the note reflecting Cheney’s order that Libby leak information to Judy at this meeting. And Libby explained that note away (only somewhat plausibly) by saying Cheney instructed him to leak the NIE. Cheney says, though, he “cannot specifically recall having a conversation with Scooter Libby during which Libby advised the Vice President that he wanted to share the key judgments of the NIE with Judith Miller. Although the Vice President cannot recall having such a conversation, if one did occur, he would have advised Libby only to use something if it was declassified.” Cheney went on, “When asked if ever had a conversation with Scooter Libby wherein Libby informed the Vice President that certain material within the NIE needed to be declassified before it could be shared externally, Vice President Cheney advised that he does not recall.” That’s when Cheney started refusing to answer based on presidential privilege. In any case, Libby’s notes show that not only did Cheney know of the meeting with Judy Miller, but Cheney gave Libby a detailed order of what to do at that meeting. But Cheney simply can’t recall those details less than a year later.

Now, if I were Libby, this is where I’d begin to be really furious. Cheney’s pinning all the secret back-channel discussions with journalists (including Libby’s meeting with Judy at the St. Regis, which wasn’t put on Libby’s official schedule) on Libby. But Libby has notes showing that Cheney gave him meticulous instructions on many of those exchanges. And Cathie Martin also testified that Cheney directed Libby to work with journalists that week.

Of course, given how central the Judy meeting is (and, potentially, the July 9 Novak conversation that was hidden by the parties even more assiduously), I can understand why Cheney would want to pretend he had nothing to do with the events. What I don’t understand is how Libby would let Cheney sustain that claim.

The cover-up conversation he and Libby had in October 2003

And then there’s Cheney’s denials of any knowledge of or participation in a cover-up in October 2003. As a general matter, Cheney claims to have “no specific memory” of conversations with Libby about the leak in October 2003–even though they were in Jackson Hole together during one of their later discussions on the subject. I guess that’s why he disclaims all knowledge of the things Libby told him at that time.

Cheney claims “no one told him [after the investigation was announced] of talking to any reporters about Joe Wilson or Wilsons wife.” (23) But Libby claims he told Cheney–at the least–about his fictional conversation in which Tim Russert told Libby about Plame. And Cheney claims he “has no specific memory of … a conversation [when] Libby told him he was not Novak’s source.” (24) But the “meat-grinder note” shows Libby making that claim in writing, with Cheney writing instructions to Andy Card and/or Scott McClellan in response!

Cheney denies knowing “if Scooter Libby independently attempted to get the White House press office to make a statement clearing him prior to discussing it with the Vice President.” (24) Admittedly Libby’s “recall” on this matter was as spotty as Cheney’s, but in his grand jury appearance, he made it clear he talked to Cheney about his inability to get an exonerating statement on his own before Cheney called himself.

All this is the more ridiculous given Cheney’s claims that he has no memory of writing the “meat-grinder note” and especially has no memory of why he wrote “Tenet / Wilson memo” next to Libby’s note where he claimed he hadn’t leaked classified information. When Addington reviewed this note as it was collected for discovery in fall 2003, he called Cheney’s lawyer Terry O’Donnell to warn him about it! So not only must Cheney be aware of this note, his lawyer must be too. Though perhaps that explains Cheney’s lack of all recall about it.

Most of all, though, Cheney claims to have no knowledge of what can only be described as their cover-up conversations, in which Libby told Cheney his fictional story about Russert, but then later reminded Cheney that he–Cheney–had really been the source of his knowledge of Plame’s identity.

He cannot recall Scooter Libby telling him how he first learned about Valerie Wilson. It is possible Libby may have learned about Valerie Wilson’s employment from the Vice President after the Vice President’s phone call with George Tenet, but the Vice President has no specific recollection of such a conversation. The Vice President also cannot recall ever waving Libby off, at a certain point in time, when Libby offered to tell him everything he knew about the Wilson matter. The Vice President has no recollection of Libby saying that he’d learned about Valerie Wilson from a reporter, nor does he have any recollection of Libby indicating that anyone else in the administration knew about Valerie Wilson’s employment at the CIA. Moreover, Vice President Cheney does not have recollection of Libby indicating that reporters with whom Libby was speaking about the Wilson matter, ever informed him of Valerie Wilson’s employment with the CIA.

Now, I don’t blame Cheney for denying any memory of these discussions about a cover-up. The conversations were utterly damning, and perhaps both Libby and Cheney are better off that Cheney didn’t confirm Libby’s version of that story. At the same time, though, as someone who sat in Jackson Hole with Cheney devising a story (and also a strategy about hiding behind journalists), I’d feel betrayed if I were Scooter Libby, seeing Cheney disavowing that close cooperation. This cover-up was always about faithfulness to the cause, but even while Libby spent four years holding up his side of the bargain, Cheney was selling him out with Fitzgerald.

Ironically, in his Fitzgerald interview Dick Cheney treated his trusted former aide in much the same way Cheney treated Joe Wilson after he revealed his trip: Cheney denied having made orders and inquiries that set in motion the whole process, and then later claimed that, since he didn’t get a specific report back, he had nothing to do with the whole thing.

How’s it feel to get the Joe Wilson treatment, Scooter? I know when Wilson got treated that way, he got mighty chatty. Are you getting that urge to hit the talk shows?

image_print
85 replies
  1. JasonLeopold says:

    the meeting Cheney and Libby had in Wyoming in October 2003 is the same day, if I am not mistaken, when emails from the OVP disappeared. In fact, if I remember correctly, they couldn’t find any emails during from this time. Do you recall that as well?

    • emptywheel says:

      Posted on it yesterday. I’ll have to ask WO, though, but I think the emails weren’t properly destroyed until February 2004. They were just archived different at PRECISELY this time to make them easier to destroy. Sort of forward-thinking of Cheney, really.

      • JasonLeopold says:

        ah! thanks. You did quite an amazing job yesterday with your reports. I guess this one got passed me. Thank you

  2. JasonLeopold says:

    on a side note, this is the most thorough report out there on the transcript. thank you for this excellent report.

  3. BoxTurtle says:

    I’m betting Scooter will be kept happy, regardless of the cost. If he hits the talk shows, it will be to do Cheney’s bidding. Otherwise, I bet he declines all requests. He might call up Dick and yell at him, but at the end of the day both are better off sticking together.

    If he was going to spill, he’d have done it when he didn’t get pardoned.

    Boxturtle (Would love to be wrong)

      • emptywheel says:

        Luskin? Or Jeffress, Libby’s “half-lawyer-half-journalist-management” guy? Not to mention the fact that Jeffress is partners with Bush family fixer James Baker.

      • BoxTurtle says:

        Yeah, I’m just not seeing an upside to Scooter for squealing. He’s just going to have to suck this down.

        Boxturtle (I hope he chokes on it, metaphorically speaking)

        • Peterr says:

          And if he squealed, there are all those things he’d have to give up.

          For instance, the neocon Center for Security Policy gave two awards at their recent banquet: the “Keeper of the Flame” award to Cheney, and the “Service Before Self” award to Scooter.

          Awards like this for Scooter are designed to keep him from . . . what’s the phrase? . . . going rogue.

            • Peterr says:

              Past winners of the “Keeper of the Flame” are . . .

              2008 General Jack Keane and the Heroes of the Surge

              2007 Senator Joe Lieberman and The Defenders of the Home Front

              2006 HASC Chairman Duncan Hunter and All Those who Serve

              2005 Senator Jim Inhofe and the Heroes of the Homefront

              2004 General Peter Pace and the Defenders of Freedom

              2003 Hon. Paul Wolfowitz and the Liberators of Iraq

              If that’s not a Rogue’s Gallery, I don’t know what one would look like.

              They haven’t updated their site yet to include Cheney’s award.

              Also, there’s no indication that they’ve ever given a “Service Before Self” award in the past. Thus, this is a tremendous honor that they’ve given Scooter, in naming him as the inaugural recipient.

              I suppose that when Dubya didn’t give Scooter a pardon, Cheney went looking for someone else to give Scooter something to keep him happy. When CSP came to Cheney and said “We’d like to honor you,” I’ll bet he told them he wouldn’t accept it unless they came up with a way to honor Scooter, too.

                • Peterr says:

                  In the past, they probably thought Jack was working undercover, and honoring him publicly would blow all that.

                  Now they’re probably waiting for him to be released from custody, so they can honor him as a political prisoner.

  4. SaltinWound says:

    If Libby had known all this during the trial, I wonder if Fitzgerald would have been able to flip him.

  5. rosalind says:

    ah, cheney’s just “gigging” us.

    i’ve never encountered this term before. between two online definitions:

    1. a giggle, a bit of laughter.
    2. to catch a fish or frog with a gig (a pronged spear)

    i’m going with #2. fits his personality.

    from pg. 6 of interview: “He does recall at one point ‘gigging’ Tenet and/or McLaughlin about vetting a separate, unrelated intelligence matter by sarcastically suggesting to them that perhaps they ought to send Joe Wilson to check it out.”

    • dakine01 says:

      A “gig” is also another term for a “demerit” in some military school circles.

      Not that Cheney would actually know that usage from personal experience, but he probably had heard it used.

      And yes, gigging fish (or frogs) is a recognized technique that is legal in many areas. (Went a few times with my father when I was a kid)

  6. JasonLeopold says:

    Fitzgerald said during Libby’s trial:

    “The vice president picked Judith Miller for a reason. They went to the St. Regis Hotel for two hours for a reason. The best way to get a story out is to leak an exclusive. That’s one of the times [July 8, 2003], the defendant shared the employment of Wilson’s wife [Plame] with the CIA with Judith Miller. There was a focus of who sent Wilson [to Niger]. There was an obsession of Wilson. They felt the wife was responsible.”

    OK. this is a strange question perhaps. But, legally speaking and maybe bmaz can weigh in, by simply stating he could not recall any of these events Fitzgerald couldn’t do anything? Or is it that Fitzgerald chose not to do anything?

    • bmaz says:

      Oh, both I suppose. You could attack Cheney like a pitbull and try to drive some wedges in cracks until something popped out. There is certainly enough there to do that, but it would be an absolute war at that point, and that is not how Fitzgerald plays; his style is to have a few more ducks lined up before he goes on the warpath. And, quite frankly, I doubt he had any support for that in the Bush DOJ and he was not and independent prosecutor in the least, so that would factor in too I think. Fitzgerald opted for restraint in spite of the fact he clearly had Cheney in his sights. I can see the logic of that decision. But it is a scene I would have liked to see……

    • emptywheel says:

      My take is the following:

      1) You don’t go after Cheney unless you get him for the leak itself, not for just lying. (Fitz is not Ken Starr)

      2) You don’t get him with the leak (and the lying and hte obstruction) unless you either tie up the destroyed emails and/or you get Judy to come clean plus get Scooter to flip. He got none of those, and besides, Judy made herself pretty useless as a witness along the way.

      3) There are also the legal questions. Agnew (indicted for actions prior to being elected) aside, CAN you indict a sitting VP? And to the extent that Cheney claimed the EO gave him ability to declassify, how are you goign to deal with IIPA? The Bush admin was actually arguing over whether Cheney was right or not and he ultimately won (I’ll have to check–Emmet Flood may have helped). But it took until 2007.

      • JasonLeopold says:

        thank you for this as well. I am reading over some of the things Fitzgerald and even Wells said during the closing arguments and was just wondering how it all squared with Cheney’s interview in a legal sense. This helps.

      • bmaz says:

        Yeah, I think that is about right. And hey, that is what “prosecutorial discretion” is about. I have no problem with his decision; would not have if he had been more aggressive either. It was his call, and he made it; I am good with that. I have always been a bit perplexed why he did not pound on the email angle a lot harder though. There was a very legitimate basis for demanding a true forensic investigation of the whole WH email mess, and he kind of stepped more gingerly on that than I would have hoped. But again, that is his discretion.

      • perris says:

        to the extent that Cheney claimed the EO gave him ability to declassify, how are you goign to deal with IIPA?

        you know, I was under the impression he would use that “supposed” authority (which I believe does not exist since I do not believe a president can give that power to someone without congress’s approval but ianal)

        however in the interview cheney tells the bold faced, “he had nothing to do with it” so his ability to declassify is therefore mute as a point in defense since he would have had to assert said ability, if he is claiming he didn’t do it he couldn’t then say “but I declassified the information”

        • perris says:

          to the extent that Cheney claimed the EO gave him ability to declassify, how are you goign to deal with IIPA?

          ps

          cheney went on his treason tour to specifically make this claim, that there was an executive order that transferred bush’s power to cheney without benefit of the legislate

          I knew he was trying to innoculate himself from culpability if he were discovered but here’s the question

          where in that eo does there demonstrate anything of the sort that would give him such an “authority”

          and by the way, I don’t even think the presdent has such an authority as to expose a covert asset and I believe I saw opiniony thats that said just that;

          if a president doesn’t have the authority then nor could he transfer said ability even if he is allowed to transfer top secret enjoyments carved for he and he alone

    • FrankProbst says:

      OK. This is a strange question perhaps. But, legally speaking and maybe bmaz can weigh in, by simply stating he could not recall any of these events Fitzgerald couldn’t do anything? Or is it that Fitzgerald chose not to do anything?

      What’s he going to do? A perjury charge isn’t going to stick. Papa Dick can just take the stand say, “Aw, shucks! My memory hasn’t been so good since that third heart attack. My mind is so gone that I once accidentally shot an old man in the face!”

      • Rayne says:

        Jeebus. I hate to think that old man took one in the face just so Cheney could make it look like he was losing it in a preemptive effort to fend off future prosecution…

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      It’s hilarious that Cheney and Scooter picked the St. Regis for a “dead drop” with Judy Miller. It’s on 16th and K, NW: near the center of lobbyist central, and near the Mayflower, the White House and other houses of ill repute.

  7. WTFOver says:

    Newly released documents show the FBI interviewed a naked, chained terror suspect back in 2002 as the bureau struggled with the CIA over how to treat high-value prisoners.

    Details of the interrogation were contained in documents released late Friday as part of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, and Judicial Watch.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091031/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_terror_interrogations_7

    As the CIA began to use harsh interrogation techniques against captured terror suspects, the FBI became wary of the legality of the methods, which ranged from forced nudity to waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning. As a result, FBI agents were ordered not to participate in such harsh interrogations.

  8. WTFOver says:

    The Justice Department invoked the state secrets privilege Friday to try to stop a lawsuit over Bush-era wiretapping — the first time the Obama administration has done so under its new policy on such cases.

    Attorney General Eric Holder announced the decision in a California lawsuit challenging the warrantless wiretapping program begun after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

    Under the state secrets privilege, the government can have a lawsuit dismissed if hearing the case would jeopardize national security.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091031/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_warrantless_wiretapping_4

    The Bush administration invoked the privilege numerous times in lawsuits over various post-2001 programs, but the Obama administration recently announced a new internal review process in which more senior Justice Department officials would make such decisions.

    Holder said that in the current case, that review process had convinced him “there is no way for this case to move forward without jeopardizing ongoing intelligence activities that we rely upon to protect the safety of the American people.”

    To proceed with the case, Holder said, would expose intelligence sources and methods.

  9. WTFOver says:

    FBI agents who arrived at a secret CIA jail overseas in September 2002 found prisoners “manacled to the ceiling and subjected to blaring music around the clock,” and a CIA official wrote a list of questions for interrogators including “How close is each technique to the ‘rack and screw,’ ” according to hundreds of pages of partly declassified documents released Friday by the Justice Department.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/us/01justice.html?_r=1&ref=world

    The documents include handwritten notes, apparently prepared by Justice Department officials, discussing the possibility of prosecuting some employees of the Central Intelligence Agency. The notes reveal that the Justice Department considered prosecuting a CIA interrogator for a previously reported incident in which a detainee was threatened with a gun and a power drill, but it says department officials declined to prosecute the case.

  10. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Refresh my recollection, but do we surmise that Cheney assumed that Wilson was part of a CIA plot to “get him” either by being incompetent or by being competent and, in either case, coming up with the “wrong” data, which would not support his purported case for war? Or do we surmise that he regarded Wilson as an independent actor with CIA connections, and that outing Plame was part of a personal assault on Joe Wilson?

    Either way, the attack on Wilson by outing his wife is highly personal and extraordinarily and permanently damaging to one’s finances and career. Either way it is a stick in the eye of the federal bureaucracy, as a whole, and the CIA and its non-proliferation team, in particular.

    The method of attack is analogous to Cheney’s preference for torture: it is excruciatingly painful and personal, in part because it is overkill and beyond the norm expected by even seasoned players. It assures that the “enemy” against whom it is directed becomes hardened and multiplies in number. The resulting increase in the number and determination of one’s enemies justifies, after the fact (and in its perpetrators’ minds), the brutality of the original acts.

    • emptywheel says:

      Oh, I’m pretty sure that he regarded this as part of a CIA plot. Pincus did a series of articles reporting on the Libby-Cheney pressure at CIA, and for a number of reasons I think Dick saw Wilson as part of that movement.

      For that reason, look carefully at how Dick treats Pincus’ stories, etc, as different in his interview (it’s also useful to compare Pincus with the mostly-redacted response to Matthews/Russert.

  11. FrankProbst says:

    I confess that the interview isn’t really what I was expecting. Cheney sounds like a choir boy with severe Alzheimer’s. I thought that he’d be more combative. I agree that he threw Scooter under the bus. I don’t think Scooter would flip on his own, nor do I think he’d be all that surprised by anything Cheney said. (He was, after all, Cheney’s Cheney for several years, so I suspect he knew his boss pretty well.) I’m much more curious about how Mrs. Scooter is handling all of this. She didn’t seem terribly happy about the fact that Scooter took a bullet for Papa Dick, and I’m fairly sure that Scooter assured her that this would all blow over after he got his pardon. Now she’s married to a convicted felon, and the Vice President is making it look like her husband was the criminal mastermind in the betrayal of a CIA agent. I’d be a bit testy, if I were her.

    • fatster says:

      Yeah. This has always interested me:

      “Libby’s wife, Harriet Grant, was not as composed [after the verdict]. In the first row of spectators, she hunched over and shook. A young member of Libby’s defense team put his arm around her shoulders. After judge and jury left, Grant went over to hug her husband with a furious look on her face. Three reporters heard her say what sounded like, “We’re gonna [expletive] ’em.”‘

      Link.

  12. Mary says:

    OT – I’m watching the bookspan from Oct 7 now on the torture memos. Missed most of the first part. It’s extremely frustrating to watch. I think if the OPR report ever does come out I’ll be even mroe frustrated.

  13. bobschacht says:

    Remarkable analysis, EW.
    But I’m not sure about the point. Are you suggesting that in this interview, Cheney set Scooter up for Fitzgerald’s prosecution, making it easier to convict him? If not, then what difference does it make at this point? Scooter’s been taken care of; he has his sinecure. Wouldn’t he just regard this as water under the bridge?

    Bob in AZ

  14. MadDog says:

    …How’s it feel to get the Joe Wilson treatment, Scooter?

    A point about Cheney that I’ve thought about for a long time, but never before put into writing until now is the following:

    Folks make a fundamental mistake when they call these people “Cheney’s friends”.

    Cheney has no friends.

    Cheney has only “enemies” and “accomplices”.

    If you are not an “accomplice” of Cheney’s, you are his “enemy”.

    And even if you are an “accomplice” of Cheney’s, you may still end up being his “enemy”.

    This pattern of either being an “enemy” and “accomplice” holds true through the entirety of his life.

    And lest anyone demur that this does not account for his family, it most assuredly does!

  15. Gerald says:

    It is understandable, but really borders on wild fanciful dreaming to think that there is any possible chance for Libby to “flip.” There is nothing for him to gain unless Obama would promise a “full pardon.” In fact he would lose considerable leverage with his peers and fellow travelers if he did “flip.”

    Libby’s deal is done. If he wanted Cheney to suffer, he could or would act without knowing anything about Cheney’s FBI interview.

    My expectation would be that his main thought is “why couldn’t I have been more forgetful?”

    As Rove has demonstrated again, and again, there is no law against being forgetful or vague and it will only won’t hurt you if you are NOT defending yourself against a specific charge.

  16. Bustednuckles says:

    For the life of me, I cannot understand why you have not been snagged off the streets.
    You are, without a doubt, a National Treasure my dear lady and I won’t hesitate to say you are greatly admired around these parts.

    Thank you for what you do in shining a bright light on these matters of National Security and ,IMO, TREASON.

    Busted.

  17. Teddy Partridge says:

    It’s terrifying to think that this man, whom we were told for eight years was such a bureaucratic mastermind, was really a forgetful old fool! And only a heartbeat away, all that time.

  18. Sara says:

    God, First time in two weeks that Login has worked for me.

    It is a little bit of a nuance, but Joe Wilson’s patron in critizing the Iraq Invasion plans in the media in the fall of 2002 was Brent Scowcroft, who was clearly representing the opinion and positions of GHW Bush. It was Scowcroft who got Joe invited on to expert panels, Cable News Talkies, suggested he write his first op/ed in December, 2002. I suspect Cheney’s attitude toward Joe Wilson had much to do with viewing him as working with Scowcroft and GHWB, as opposed to seeing him as acting in the interests of CIA.

    A good deal of Cheney’s power in the GWBush administration depended on his ability to manage the information the President received, and his ability to cast his own analysis around it, thus managing the decisions GWB eventually made. The last thing he would have wanted was an alternative avenue of influence that tracked back to the close circle around Poppy. I suspect Cheney viewed the possibility that the GHWBush circle could find easy access to the decision processing circle around George W. Bush a very real threat — and he saw Joe Wilson as connected to that.

    • MadDog says:

      And Mumbles Mukasey.

      And Sara Taylor.

      And Kyle Sampson.

      And Lurita Doan.

      And Condi Rice.

      And Karl Rove.

      And the Bush/Cheney regime list seems to go on forever! *g*

      I’m guessing the easier task would be naming those in the Bush/Cheney regime who had a memory: Zero, zilch, nada!

    • Sara says:

      “I’m trying to remember, how did Fitz ever learn of the Libby-Miller June meeting?”

      Wasn’t it because Judy found her notebooks covering that meeting in a grocery bag under her desk in between getting out of the slammer, and turning over all documents covered by the subpoena when she testified before the Grand Jury? I always think of these as the Flame notes — she had the approximate spelling with the proper way to pronounce Plame.

  19. ezdidit says:

    Whereas Holder has concluded evidence has to be sealed on the one hand, he may as well convene a secret ‘Star Chamber’ on the other. Then he could sanction miscreants and reward evildoers at the same time – and he could do it secretly!

    What a joke this is. The least Holder could do is scare the bejeesus out of BushCo & send Cheney and lil’ Cheney heading for the f**king Montana hills. I had actually thought Holder was advancing these unitary secrecy theories to prompt a judicial repudiation of what were essentially BushCo DoJ arguments. Now I see that even the best, most independent judges are coopted. What a sham.

    None of this keeps us safer. None of it. It merely makes the Office of the President more powerful, and dangerous. It was too soon years ago for Reagan to cover up Iran-Contra in the shadow of Watergate a decade earlier. But should this Holder crap withstand judicial scrutiny, we will have lost judicial checks entirely.

  20. cinnamonape says:

    I kind of like Cheney’s own description of what he did to Libby in the interview with Fitz

    …when it came down to saving his own skin he abandoned “sacrifice the guy who the Vice Pres asked to put his neck in the meat-grinder due to the incompetence of others.”

  21. millerdunwoody says:

    This is our former vice president; honored nationwide by people who think we’d have won the Vietnam war if only the media and the hippies hadn’t fucked everything up. They hate Clinton for his draft evasion, but Cheney seems to get a pass on that one; his deferment-daughters appear to be happy to return him the favor of giving them birth, if you can call being Dick and Lynn Cheney’s daughter a “favor.”

    Cheney’s one of those people you just can’t say enough bad about. You really do want to do things to him you can’t talk about on the internet (unless you’re a teabagger talking about Barack Obama). He’s a vile, useless man, nothing fucking good about him. No brains, no loyalty, no vision, no morals except the morals of the marketplace and what’s good for Dick and Halliburton is good for the nation and if the nation doesn’t like it then the nation can go fuck itself. And the world, too, while you’re at it.

    When John Dean told Nixon there was “a cancer on the presidency,” Dean didn’t know how right he was: Dick Cheney was lurking in the background with his clipboard and his file folders, taking notes about how to get it right next time. Cheney has done a lot of damage to this country and the world and he needs to be brought down, yesterday. I just wish I knew how it could be done.

  22. millerdunwoody says:

    Yeah, and what fundamental value of our constitutional republic is Addington actively trying to overturn these days? I swear these dudes were born about a hundred years too late, or maybe a thousand.

  23. 1boringoldman says:

    Out, damned spot! out, I say! One; two: why, then, ’tis time to do ’t. Hell is murky! Fie, my lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account?
    Lady Macbeth in Macbeth, Act V Scene 1

  24. Leen says:

    Read most the Cheney interview. Cheney threw Libby under the bus and he also kept insulting Tenet and the CIA “amateur hour” How many times did Cheney and Libby take trips to Langely to make sure the “amateur hour” folks were following orders?

    Cheney’s interview (page 21)
    (U)The Vice President described himself as a long time admirer of the CIA and its people and programs, but he characterized their performance in the Wilson matter as “amateur hour.” His mindset about the entire issue led him to wonder to himself about what was going on out at Langely”

    With “admirers” like Cheney the CIA must be asking who needs enemies.

  25. Leen says:

    the other issue that I found odd is how is it that former V.P. Cheney can not remember just when he and Bush decided to (insta or retroactively) declassify parts of the NIE. Would think that would have to be on record ..the date.

    • bobschacht says:

      You’re forgetting the pixie dust memo. Bush can declassify anytime, anywhere, and he doesn’t even have to put it in writing, or tell the people who are supposed to be told, IIRC.

      Bob in AZ

  26. MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel says:

    Betcha Scooter Libby currently is writing a novel in which a balding elderly man with numerous health problems held prisoner in a remote country inn is forced to “copulate with a bear,” and to “satisfy many men in a night.” Libby figures the plot lines, as they were, “worked” in his previous novel, so why not now?:

    71 of 85 people found the following review helpful:
    1.0 out of 5 stars Not the kind of “snowbound evenings” poets have in mind…, November 6, 2005
    By Mrs. Tarquin Biscuitbarrel (Undisclosed Location) –
    Perhaps I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby thought that by setting his novel in a snowbound inn in northern Honshu, a century ago, his readers would swear that the lavish dollops of voyeurism, bestiality, paedophilia, and corpse-robbery advance the plot. Well, there is no plot. There’s a blizzard blanketing a Japanese country inn, a young man called only “the apprentice” who’s helping run the joint in the absence of the proprietor, and an overflow of stranded travelers bunking down in tight quarters. The natural hot spring located within the inn means that the nubile and pre-nubile girls can shuck their matted furs so that The Apprentice has something more interesting to look at than fat middle-aged ladies and itinerant “lacquer tappers” with brownish teeth. Libby’s writing would be pleasingly spare if it said anything, but the descriptions of the inn, the snow, the dead bodies, and so forth provide meager padding between the sex scenes.

    The hair-raisingly prurient parts of this book have been excerpted extensively elsewhere, so I’ll not repeat them. However, Libby appears more than approving of the explicit education that the very young girls in “The Apprentice” receive. Not in typical school subjects, no, but from instructors whose teaching tools include caged bears (yes, bears, trained to couple with children), wooden dildos, and incestuous relatives who painstakingly instruct little girls to “satisfy many men in a night.”

    The fictional output of such Republican luminaries as Bill O’Reilly, Newt Gingrich, and I. Lewis Libby underscore the truth of the proverb, “Those who really have it [“it” meaning sexual prowess] don’t talk about it.” Some men, such as Libby and Neil Bush, have labored under the delusion that any sexual peccadilloes taking place in Asia will stay in Asia. “The Apprentice” neatly lays that myth to rest. Unless you really go for this kind of stuff, I wouldn’t recommend wasting hundreds of dollars on one of the few copies available.

    I paid $4 plus surface-mail shipping, but the price has skyrocketed since Libby was indicted on five counts by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, and resigned from Vice President Cheney’s office. Gee, lucky me

  27. staygold212 says:

    1. Libby is a felon and so he is disbarred as a lawyer. ‘Service Before Self’ Award or not, I doubt Cheney’s conservative bretheren is as reliable a source of income as being a top DC lawyer.
    If Obama cared about the truth and/or partisanship, his admin could dangle a pardon for Libby, which would restore his career, if he cooperates.

    2. I am struck by recurrent patterns in these scandals:
    a. the Iran-Contra “I can’t recall” defense. Cheney was a major enabler of this scandal’s cover-up in Congress. (If I used “I can’t recall,” I doubt I’d get away with such lies or the crime.)
    b. Nixon’s ‘If the President does it, then it must be legal’ is a big part of the Cheney modus operandi. Cheney even was part of a conference about how to avoid Watergate’s mistakes — mistakes that led to the scandal being discovered and somewhat prosecuted. The cover-up was prosecuted. We still have little or no idea what was so imporant in that DNC office for the ‘burglars’ to break in twice to bug the phones. I’m too young to know, but Nixon was probably leading in the polls at that point, and he won by a landslide.
    i. The Executive Order excuse is part and parcel of this. Cheney’s just emiting stuff to confuse us. It is a lie. In covert ops you deny and then throw counter-accusations. This is similar. I can’t think of a single time Bush or Cheney told the truth.

    3. I have long believed that the outing of Valerie Plame was only partially retribution for Joe Wilson deflating the Nuke/Bio WMD claim, specifically the Nuke part. With Wilson’s revelation Cheney only had the Bio WMD part left to use for lies. Remember the search for the mobile weapons labs that were hidden anywhere in Iraq?
    Wilson was an American Hero. In the early 1990s Gulf War, he negotiated face to face with Saddam Hussein and freed some Americans. He and his wife represented knowledge and power, a unique threat to Cheney’s lies and power. Plame had an entire Cover and network in the Middle East, Africa, and Iran. If Cheney were to lie about Bio WMD, she could be in a position to debunk that as well. Outing Plame ruined not just Plame, but the entire network and cover. People who worked with the CIA might have been killed over this.

    4. Interestingly, in early July 2003, around when this Niger Yellowcake fraud was being revealed, Judith Miller co-wrote a NYTimes piece that Steven Hatfill was creating a mobile bio-weapons lab that was about to be sent to Iraq for the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Delta Force. “We are not growing anthrax or botulinum toxin,” Colonel Darley said [of the mobile bio-wmd training lab]. “None of this equipment is functional. It looks like — it is — the real stuff, but it’s nonfunctional.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/02/us/after-war-biological-warfare-subject-anthrax-inquiry-tied-anti-germ-training.html?scp=1&sq=Subject of Anthrax Inquiry Tied to Anti-Germ Training&st=cse&pagewanted=all

    There is a fine line between defense/training and offense/false-flag operations.

    I have long wondered why false-flag Bio WMD weren’t planted in Iraq, justifying the invasion. Valerie Plame was in a unique position to debunk this, and Hatfill was a hot topic back then as a person of interest in the Anthrax investigation. He’s since been cleared, but he was still consulting/volunteering for the DIA & Delta Force on this very realistic mobile bio-weapons lab. This could be the scandal behind the scandal. What we are discussing here with Cheney and Libby is a cover-up of a cover-up, and it might be a cover-up of a cover-up of a cover-up.

    Joe Wilson blew the whistle on the nuke sham, and his wife was working in the area justifying the War on Terror’s false-association with Iraq and maybe Iran down the road.

Comments are closed.