Kos : FRANK RICH: It's Bush-Cheney, Not Rove-Libby

[cal04]

by Maccabee

Rich puts the blame where no one else has so far. Just read on. Link and more after the jump...


Asked repeatedly about Mr. Rove's serial appearances before a Washington grand jury, the jittery Mr. Bush, for once bereft of a script, improvised a passable impersonation of Norman Bates being quizzed by the detective in "Psycho." Like Norman and Ms. Stewart, he stonewalled.

That stonewall may start to crumble in a Washington courtroom this week or next. In a sense it already has. Now, as always, what matters most in this case is not whether Mr. Rove and Lewis Libby engaged in a petty conspiracy to seek revenge on a whistle-blower, Joseph Wilson, by unmasking his wife, Valerie, a covert C.I.A. officer. What makes Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation compelling, whatever its outcome, is its illumination of a conspiracy that was not at all petty: the one that took us on false premises into a reckless and wasteful war in Iraq. That conspiracy was instigated by Mr. Rove's boss, George W. Bush, and Mr. Libby's boss, Dick Cheney.

But the issue is not just who leaked Valerie Plame's identity- rather- central core of the argument to go to war, says Rich, is the White House Iraq Group's mission to sell the war no matter what.


a lot more here
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/15/205649/37
It's Bush-Cheney, Not Rove-Libby
By FRANK RICH
Published: October 16, 2005
The investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert C.I.A. officer has illuminated the conspiracy behind the selling of the war in Iraq.

[TrueAmerican]

1. Maybe Dubya leaked Plame over pillow talk with Judy?

Is Judy protecting Dubya?

[purduejake]

2. I think she's protecting a source...

I can't say I disagree with her, no matter how much I despise who her source is.

edit: typo

[jrthin]

6. So, if say, someone is protecting

a murderer, I guess you could understand that?

[purduejake]

22. That's much different.

I think it is important to protect sources so you can continue to get information from people in the government. As somebody else pointed out in response to me, there are many other things to consider and I am willing to admit my mistake in judgment on this one. After reconsidering, I agree she should have revealed her source.

[jrthin]

23. I'm sorry, if a crime

is being committed which harms people (as is the case with Judith) I hope the call of a higher moral duty to ones society is louder than the one to protect a criminal source.

No one should be above the law, including journalists, who so far have proven that they are irresponsible in handling the basic trust they have with the public: keep the public informed about its government.

I am sick of hearing this crap about protecting one's source, it sounds hollow.

[purduejake]

26. I already changed my mind...

Sorry you have to hear the crap, but like I said, I already said I agree with you now on this case.

[Clark2008]

76. As a former journalist, I've protected many a source -

too many to count. And still do to this day (even though I haven't reported in four years).

However, what Judith Miller was doing wasn't protecting a source. She is protecting a criminal. In this particular case, once Judy's "source" outed a protected CIA agent, he/she became a criminal.

I'm all for people coming forward to whistleblow on a crime or to tip a reporter to a potential story so the reporter can go elsewhere to research the tip; however, what Judy did was protect someone who wasn't whistleblowing on a crime or tipping her off (I mean, honestly, what relevance is it that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA? He found the Nigerian report to be off base on his own) for a story but who was tipping her off for smear and was illegal.

It's not the same, at all.

[spooky3]

14. I'm amazed at how many smart people are confused by this

situation. The principle is not one of protecting a source because you
--gave your word or
--you would otherwise endanger that source for providing information that is beneficial to society or
--would ruin your chances for more stories.

Any such right to protect sources has to be balanced against other principles involving the rights of others, including society, to be protected from wrongdoing.

The more relevant principle is that reporters like other people have very limited rights to refuse to provide information deemed crucial, by appropriate authorities, in a criminal investigation, and little or nothing in this case justified Miller's lack of cooperation. The judge to whom Fitzgerald presented the evidence deemed Miller's information to be very important and that he could not get it in other ways. Your relationship with your psychologist is more privileged than a relationship with a reporter. But if you tell your psychologist you are going to kidnap and murder a child, your psychologist might have to report this to police to prevent someone from being harmed by you. Further, sources of the type and high level involved in this investigation and reporters KNOW that reporters do NOT have an unfettered right to confidentiality. Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and friends have plenty of lawyers to advise them. So they knew damn good and well that what they were doing was wrong AND that Judy might be forced to rat them out. Judy Miller KNEW she did not have this legal right and so does the New York Times' editorial staff. Their support of her has been disingenuous and unconscionable.

The disclosure of Plame's identity and all the related conspiracies etc., were done to punish a whistle-blower and serve as a chilling warning to would-be whistle-blowers, and allowing Miller not to provide information that Fitzgerald needs to protect whistle-blowers and society is wrong. Please do not confuse it with PROTECTING whistle-blowers or the honorable act of honoring an agreement to protect honestly given information by a powerless person who has to remain anonymous in order to escape retaliation.

[purduejake]

24. Thanks for the explanation

You changed my mind. I really do appreciate it since so many times I get flamed on here, but your logic and respect convinced me.

[spooky3]

53. you're welcome! and thank you for the positive feedback

:hug:

[jrthin]

25. Thank you!!!! nt

[Maraya1969]

37. So is this dumb to suggest that Miller went to jail because she

feared the same consequence of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. She was protecting some scary people so maybe it was not honor that motivated her.

Sounds like the mob. The Sopranos can get some good story line from our very own White House.

[spooky3]

54. I think there's a very good chance you're right.

[dalaigh lllama]

42. Great synopsis and explanation.

You ought to send it to Lou Dobbs; he seems rather clueless on this subject.

[TahitiNut]

44. Very well said! Miller's hypocrisy is detestible and her behavior criminal

[spooky3]

52. thanks everyone

[lostnfound]

67. She's an instrument of deception, and she's protecting her collaborator.

She's one of THEM. Not media. A participant in their strategy.

On edit: of course, that's just my opinion, there's no hard and fast proof. It's from the 'walks like a duck' school of thinking.

[Larkspur]

3. If Fitz nabs Bush, then Bush can't pardon himself or Cheney.

Oh Goddess! Would I love that!!!!

[longship]

9. He still can't pardon them.

His own administration is under investigation. A Bush pardon at this point would be a clear abuse of power. People definitely would not like that. Can you spell i-m-p-e-a-c-h-m-e-n-t?

That's why presidents pardon on their last day of office. It nullifies the impeachment for abuse of power card.

[kestrel91316]

33. The Republican Congress won't impeach him. And with Diebold,

there isn't going to be a Dem-controlled Congress. I think these thugs are going to laugh at Fitz's indictments.

[hvn_nbr_2]

46. But there's a wild card here that may restrain Dimbot

Suppose someone slipped him (or got it to him thru Poppy perhaps) a picture of JFK's eternal flame with a little note, "It's not nice to mess with an ongoing investigation. Sincerely, your friends at the agency."

[longship]

64. He's already losing Congress.

Delay is going to lose and be out of the picture. Some Repugs are becoming Republicans again. If he pardons now they will not like it. People will not like it. There will be talk of abuse of power and there will be hearings. Do not presume that all the House Repugs will not turn on him for it. Some will, and all we need is some.

Furthermore, I will guarantee that the Senate Republicans will like it even less than the House Republicans.

[FreedomAngel82]

16. Me too!

What would happen if Bush did get indicted?

[kestrel91316]

32. Hmmmmmm, I think if Fitz names Bush as an unindicted co-conspirator,

Bush can still merrily pardon anyone and everyone he wishes to. He sure CAN pardon Cheney. I have heard some say he can even pardon himself.

And Congress won't lay a hand on him.

The indicted will not be fired, nor will they resign. Mark my words.

[savemefromdumbya]

4. Inside the beltway buzz

I heard within the beltway buzz that Bush and Cheney were 'the 2' way back in July and Gannon was caught up in it but there isn't enough evidence. There were a few resignations a while back Ari Fleischer, Colin Powell, Tenet etc. which may have meant something. However, I do think on both sides of the altlantic there was a "sexing up' of intelligence to bring the US and USA to war in Iraq.

[Frustratedlady]

7. Didn't Gannon Write About

or interview Wilson before Novak, or am I all wet? I wondered about Powell's resignation, as it seemed he wanted out before the s* hit the fan.

Oh, what an early Christmas gift those two indictments would be.

[jillan]

49. Interesting points you brought up.

There was some reason that Colin Powell left.
Tenet got the heck outta there, and then * bribed him with that medal.

Maybe they were lied to, found out the truth, and decided that they didn't want any part of it.

Maybe that's why * has resorted to only promoting cronies. People that think he is brilliant.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

70. Don't forget Wolfowitz' departure

Wolfowitz was neck deep in the plans to invade Iraq. He also left his post in the Bush Administration. I've always wondered if he fit in somewhere and why his name never seems to come up.

[savemefromdumbya]

78. one has to look at the timeline of all these resignations

I think a lot of this was 'known' last year but the administration managed to put on a happy face! Wolfy - yes, I'd forgotten about him and remember all the buzz about Gannon earlier this year? However, the pressure from the Bush clan will probably end up in a 'whitewash' of the case ending in no indictments?

[babylonsister]

5. That would make my decade! nt

[DemReadingDU]

8. Recommended

[DemonFighterLives]

10. Oh yes please

I hope it is dubby and GFY cheney that are the targets. They have caused plenty of damage and the country needs real leadership now.
Thanks for the article.
:kick:

[FreedomAngel82]

20. There has to be some reason

as to why Bush has been crappy lately.

[DemonFighterLives]

29. He should have a big L pasted on his forehead

for Loser. And to think we had to listen to this smirky monkey tell us he would not allow treason around his office and would take care of anyone involved. I guess he wasn't including himself or his co-conspirator.

[Justice Is Comin]

58. I'll remind everyone again.

I think many people may be forgetting about this. I don't think the importance of this benign meeting (as Bush thought at the time) can be over emphasized. BUSH IS ON RECORD WITH SPECIAL PROSECUTOR Fitzgerald for over an hour. He had several of his people there and Bush had his lawyer. Everything that was said would have been witnessed by Fitzgerald's people.

This was a year and a half ago .
They were speclating that Fitz was about to wrap up his investigation way back then.

Bush's nuts right in the cracker.

[The Doctor.]

62. "Lately"? n/t

[ToolTex]

11. Of course, it is Bush & Cheney, but he can't indict them.

They had to know. Besides the leak case is really the Brewster-Jennings case, which is really the war lie case, etc. They all had to know. Come-on, we all understand that. But there is no settled law about the pres/veep being tried for crime in the courts. So for Fitz, they can only be included as Un-indicted Co-Conspirators. I'm willing to bet that at least, Rove, Libby, Miller, and Novak, will be indicted. And probably other lessor known dark players, maybe Bolton, and the Times publisher.

But these last few weeks have been about deals being traded for testimony. So we can not know who may have flipped, and gotten off lightly in exchange for the right recollections.

Fitz has the power to bring down the entire Necrecon Shadow Empire, or he may understand that Dr Kelly didn't cut his own wrists, and only take down a token few. The future of the World rests on the integrity of one man. May Atlas not shrug!

[napi21]

18. Why can't he indict Bush/Cheney?

I realize the Constitution says a President May be impeached, but it doesn't say HE CAN'T be indicted!

[FreedomAngel82]

21. And as long as

the president (or pResident in Bush's case) is in office they are under the oath to uphold the Constiution. And if a president does treason doesn't that mean he can be impeached and indicted? Or would the House have to vote to impeach him still?

[ToolTex]

28. It is not settled Law. The Executive Branch has claimed that they can't

be prosecuted in the normal manner, since they are the branch charged with carrying out the Law. They have claimed they must be impeached according to the Constitution. This has never been settled by the Court.

[napi21]

30. OK, So if they were indicted, the case would then go to SCOTUS

to make that decision? Hmmmm. Looks like yet another reason Shrub want's to get HIS strong supporters on the SC!

[ToolTex]

31. Who knows. Maybe Bush would just call out the Air Force

and bomb the Federal Courthouse. No one knows. What would you trust him to do?

[napi21]

34. If it got to that point, I'd expect him to respond like Jim Baker did!

Hide under a table in the corner and cry like a baby!!!!!!

[ignatzmouse]

50. An explanation for Roberts and Miers nominations

Which is why Bush has put one insider lawyer on the Supreme Court and is attempting to add his personal lawyer even over conservative outrage over the pick. It's a hedge. Note that in his scripted conversation with the soldiers in Iraq, he also tipped that something big was looming by thanking them and asking them to stop by and visit when they get back -- "if I'm still around."

[hang a left]

56. I was away for a couple of days when that went down.

Did he really say that?

[SupplyConcerns]

59. "If I'm still hanging around"

Yes! Did anyone else notice this? Bush seems to think of himself as a doomed man now. It's about time - we've been a "doomed country" since about December 12, 2000.

[wellstone_democrat]

60. I thought that line had a different meaning...

one that was more insulting and vicious:

"if I'm still around" meaning that the soldiers would be there so indefinitely that Bush* might be out of office after a full second term than that he was alluding to resignation or impeachment.

This guy thinks nothing really can touch him AND he's crude enough to joke about indefinite stop-loss policies even to the victims.

Think about it.

[Warren Stupidity]

69. If a president can be arrested for speeding...

he can be arrested for violation of the espionage act.

The sitting president stuff has to do with civil suits. The constitution does not say anything that would directly prevent criminal prosecution of the president. It does lay out the mechanism for impeachment - but that does not even require any actual violations of law.

Here is an intersting article on this very topic:
http://www.codepink4peace.org/downloads/CriminalProsecutionofPresident.pdf

The current position of record from the executive branch is that everybody except the president is subject to criminal prosecution. However as the article cited concludes:

"Nothing in the international law, U.S. Constitution, federal statues or court cases provides a blanket immunity for an incumbent President or other federal officials from criminal prosecutions. History and public policy also argue against such an immunity. As the U.S. Supreme Court pointed out long ago, “no man in this country is so high that he is above the law….All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.”20 It is high time for the American people to uphold and defend this fundamental principle of equal justice for all, which is one of the most important American values now ingrained in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution (“equal protection of the laws”)."

[KittyWampus]

12. Rich still hasn't grasped the fact that the NeoCons were after Wilson

before he even wrote his editorial. That this whole episode involves what Plame and her CIA group were doing as undercover operatives.

[ClayZ]

17. BINGO "The real issue was DISRUPTING PLAME'S MISSION "-

FROG MARCH... The fat lady is humming back stage!

[cal04]

19. I was also wondering if they were getting too close to something

Randi also talked about that on her show
I guess we'll never find out since it was CIA undercover work

[TahitiNut]

45. Yes he does. Read Rich's whole column here ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/opinion/16rich.html?pagewanted=print

[bpilgrim]

66. the neoCONs knew he was going to talk before his editorial was published

as did a lot of other people who knew how he felt about the deliberate manipulation of the INTEL and the paper expecting his submission.

do not doubt that shooting down a KEY whistle blower of their precedent setting and illegal PREVENTIVE WAR is not the main motivation here.

could there be a two 4 one element to this story, possibly, but the timing and the facts suggest otherwise.

i would be cautious about trying to make this a mutually exclusive scenario.

peace

[converted_democrat]

13. All I could dream of, and more.......n/t

[DemoTex]

15. So good, it makes you weep.

Kicked and recommended, and I don't do that often!

[lovuian]

27. Well Rove & Libby do work for Bush & Cheney!!! and then there

is the State of the Union address!!!

[texpatriot2004]

43. Gee, wonder why they altered it after the fact? n.t

[Maraya1969]

35. I want to know more about this part: "From a marketing point of view,

Mr. Card alluded to his group's existence by telling Elisabeth Bumiller of The New York Times that there was a plan afoot to sell a war against Saddam Hussein: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

I would like to see where this comes from.

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. The original article: Bush Aides Set Strategy to Sell Policy on Iraq

Surprising how much they admitted then. I guess they thought they could get away with it. I guess they were right.

The rollout of the strategy this week, they said, was planned long before President Bush's vacation in Texas last month. It was not hastily concocted, they insisted, after some prominent Republicans began to raise doubts about moving against Mr. Hussein and administration officials made contradictory statements about the need for weapons inspectors in Iraq.
...
Toward that end, in June the White House picked Ellis Island in New York Harbor, not Governors Island, as the place where President Bush is to deliver his Sept. 11 address to the nation. Both spots were considered, White House advisers said, but the television camera angles were more spectacular from Ellis Island, where the Statue of Liberty will be seen aglow behind Mr. Bush.
...
White House officials said they began planning more intensively for the Iraq rollout in July. Advisers consulted the Congressional calendar to figure out the best time for Iraq hearings while Ms. Hughes, even as she was driving back to Texas, discussed with Mr. Bush the outlines of his Sept. 11 speech.

By August, with Congress out of town and the United Nations not convening until September, White House officials decided to wait out the month, even as final planning continued by phone between advisers in Washington and at Mr. Bush's ranch in Texas.

http://krigskronikan.com/arkiv/2002-sep-07-NYT-card-marketing.html

[Tom Joad]

36. Judith is not a reporter, she is a propagandist ...

To call her a journalist is a joke.

[Lex]

38. Exactly. She knowingly LIED to the American people but she thinks

that she should be able to "protect" her sources?

What a piece of slime she is.

[Hamlette]

39. Rich nails it in his closing:

Whether or not Mr. Fitzgerald uncovers an indictable crime, there is once again a victim, but that victim is not Mr. or Mrs. Wilson; it's the nation. It is surely a joke of history that even as the White House sells this weekend's constitutional referendum as yet another "victory" for democracy in Iraq, we still don't know the whole story of how our own democracy was hijacked on the way to war.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

40. What's interesting is that Tweety has been insinuating that Cheney has

his hand in this, and Tweety had been approached to leak the info. He was told that Plame was fair game.

[MADem]

41. VALERIE FLAME....VALERIE FLAME!!!!

When I learned that was written in a separate part of Judy's little book, and she COULD NOT RECALL (maybe fear was a factor, there) who told her that name, all I could think of was MUMBLIN'DICK CHENEY.

He speaks in that low mumbling voice, and I will betcha when he says VALERIE PLAME, it sounds a lot like VALERIE FLAME.

Ole Mumblin' Dick....he's the man!

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-10-16T031841Z_01_EIC446318_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-LEAK.xml

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal prosecutor questioned New York Times reporter Judith Miller about whether Vice President Dick Cheney himself was aware or authorized her discussions with his chief of staff, Lewis Libby, about a covert CIA operative, Miller said on Saturday.

Miller also disclosed for the first time that the notebook she used for an interview with Libby in July 2003 contained the name "Valerie Flame," a clear reference to Valerie Plame, the covert operative whose outing triggered a sweeping criminal investigation that has shaken the Bush administration.

Miller told federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who could bring indictments as early as next week, that she did not think Libby was the source of the "Valerie Flame" reference in her notebook but that she could not recall who gave her that information....

Ya gotta wonder if Judy really IS free, or they are just letting her have enough rope to hang herself....

[i miss america]

73. That was my impression as well. Whaddya mean she couldn't remember

who told her that name???

Of course it was that sleazy mumbling big Dick.

[MADem]

74. Love that pic--it was probably the image she had in her mind when she

LIED UNDER OATH!

[SupplyConcerns]

47. The real motivation: To protect plot to plant WMD's?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5039448#5039876

This is a great analysis by a DUer. One problem with the above article is that it assumes that Wilson's critiques really were a "dagger aimed at the heart of the WHIG". That doesn't ring true to me. We know that there have been a heck of a lot of revelations that have routinely come out that were about as solid in their impact as anything Wilson would be able to muster in today's propaganda matrix. But then again, maybe there was no broader plot and they really just panicked about Wilson. If that is the case, though, the question remains: how would blowing Plame's cover serve to "discredit" Wilson?

[ginnyinWI]

71. I believe it

It makes much more sense that it was done to destroy Plame and the ability of her group to investigate than just a plan to discredit Wilson. I think they encouraged Wilson to publish the article so that they would have a plausible excuse--but now we know they were planning something before the article came out. Condi invited him to publish his opinion!

Now the dominos are beginning to fall, and they are trying to put enough distance between them to stop the damage. I only hope our media keeps its eyes on everything and exposes them all. With approval ratings for the prez so low, it might happen that they do.

[dennis00]

75. Plot To Plant WMDs

From Tehran Times, Monday, April 12,2003

Fifty days after the first reports that the U.S. Forces were unloading WMDs in southern Iraq, new reports about the movement of these weapons have been disclosed.

Google Tehran Times. Tehran Times Archives, April 12 and 13, 2004.

I need a timeline. When was the Novak article? How close to the Tehran Times articles did the campaign againt the Wilsons begin? I don't know anything about Tehran Times or their credibility, but I distinctly remember those articles. Now they seem relevant.


:wtf:

[Swamp Rat]

48. "Psycho."

:D

[populistdriven]

51. :D:D:D::D:D:D:D:D:D: SWAMP RAT!!!!!!!!

[pacalo]

57. Who knows, Fitzgerald may be leaning hardest on Rove/Libby

in order for these two egomaniacs to turn on their bosses in order to protect their own hides. However, I think these two are so embedded in their "we're above the law" mindset that it won't happen until after the indictments are issued & reality hits them in the face.

Whether or not Mr. Fitzgerald uncovers an indictable crime, there is once again a victim, but that victim is not Mr. or Mrs. Wilson; it's the nation. It is surely a joke of history that even as the White House sells this weekend's constitutional referendum as yet another "victory" for democracy in Iraq, we still don't know the whole story of how our own democracy was hijacked on the way to war.

[BrklynLiberal]

61. K & R!!!!

[Pithy Cherub]

63. Wondering aloud... Have subpoenas been issued for Bush & Cheney?

That would also cause this level of outright panic at the white house. It may also explain Fitzgerald's trip to the judge last week. Hmmmmm. :freak:

Getting mighty interesting! :woohoo:
I love the watching history repeat itself with a potential presidential mess with CORRUPT REPUBLICANS!
:popcorn:

[nvliberal]

65. Truthout and Infoweb have the NYT columnists,

and I am assuming, rightly or wrongly, that both sites have gotten permission from the NYT to post those articles.

The Kos site, though, is another matter, and he's going to get in trouble for having posters put up entire columns in violation of copyright.

[Cha]

68. How smart could *'s brain

be, anyway?

"Though Mr. Rove may be known as "Bush's brain," he wasn't smart enough to anticipate that Justice Department career employees would eventually pressure Mr. Ashcroft to recuse himself because of this conflict of interest, clearing the way for an outside prosecutor as independent as Mr. Fitzgerald."

[Beam Me Up]

72. .

[MadisonProgressive]

77. What a wonderful idea!