CHENEY??? Odd Passage In NYT Points To VP

[kpete]

Cheney?

We've noted Sunday's NYT editorial http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/opinion/29sun1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin endorsing the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales if Solicitor General and acting AG Paul Clement does not appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Gonzales' alleged perjury before Congress. But a number of readers have pointed out this odd passage. The Times editorial rather blandly states that it was Vice President Cheney who ordered the nighttime visit to John Ashcroft's hospital room.

Unwilling to accept (DOJ's refusal to reauthorize the program), Vice President Dick Cheney sent Mr. Gonzales and another official to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room to get him to approve the wiretapping.

The folks at TPMmuckraker are the ones really following this story closely. So perhaps this is a detail that has eluded me. But I was not aware that it had ever been established that Vice President Cheney ordered the visit? Speculated, rumored, sure. But I wasn't aware this had been established at all.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015946.php

[mzmolly]

1. I wonder why the Dems keep asking about the President specifically?

Hmmmm.

[pnwmom]

4. The Dems should ask Mrs. Ashcroft who called her and

what she remembers about any discussion in the hospital room.

Since she doesn't have any security clearance, this shouldn't pose any risk of divulging any security secrets. Whatever they could say in front of Mrs. Ashcroft, they should be able to say to anyone, right?

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

25. Agreed.

:hi:

[aquart]

6. I'm sorry, but what is that "hmmmm" supposed to mean?

And are "the Dems" some alien creatures quite separate from you?

[mzmolly]

22. Hmmmm, means I'm wondering

and as to your other question HUH? I am a "Dem." :eyes: Let's get pissy when there is a reason, k?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. Maybe because Andy Card went with Gonzo. eom

[Richard Steele]

28. Because they know he orders NOTHING..

...and they want to establish that Cheney gave
the order. Openly, on the record, none of the
co-conspirators want to admit that.

[mzmolly]

30. Interesting point.

:hi:

[progressoid]

31. Self delete

[truth2power]

36. Can you help me understand this?..

Gonzo stated several times that he went "at the behest of the President".

I couldn't figure out at the time, and I still can't, what was he parsing there?

Now that Cheney's in the mix, I am totally confused. Could you explain it in simple terms, if you know?

Thank you.

[Richard Steele]

37. Well, of course I don't actually KNOW for certain.

But I think what Gonzo was dancing around was
this: B*sh didn't tell him to go, someone else
told him that "B*sh wanted him to go". Most likely
Cheney.

What I SUSPECT is that Cheney has actually been issuing
orders in this fashion for a long time. He probably doesn't
even bother adding the phrase "The pResident wants you to
do this" to his commands anymore, he just gives them and
everyone follows his orders.

Probably, at some point in the past, he played a little CYA
by telling them that every order he gives is actually coming
from B*sh. But they all know damn well that such a statement
isn't gonna fool anyone, just as they know that letting Cheney
run things isn't legal.

So they're certainly going to do everything they can to NOT
tell the truth about who is really running the show, and how
he's running it.

[Canuckistanian]

2. Somebody noticed that earlier

I wonder why it was never brought up in the hearing.

[billyoc]

3. Schumer asked Gonzales if Cheney sent him,

Gonzales dodged the question.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. It sounds like Josh Marshall is twitting The New York Times

Schumer asked a question in the committee, but that was the first time I've heard Cheney's name brought up int this mess. Did I miss something?

In any case, it would have been more responsible of The Times to either say "some one at the White House sent Gonzales to Ashcroft's hospital room" or start publishing whatever it is that makes them think they are on solid ground making that kind of accusation.

There are enough things for which we can nail Cheney without going after wild goose hunt because The Times drops Cheney's name where they should not.

[mod mom]

11. How do you know his name should not have been there. I read it differently, like a news dump.

Coyly, get his name out there without much fanfare. Surely the NYT would have checked that out before dropping the c-bomb.

[Jack Rabbit]

26. I don't know. Neither do you.

Let me repeat what I said:

(I)t would have been more responsible of The Times to . . . start publishing whatever it is that makes them think they are on solid ground making that kind of accusation.

An editorial remark is not the proper way to dump news. That's what I don't think The New York Times would do.

[mod mom]

33. Good read on Kos: The Cheney NSA Program

The Cheney NSA Program
by drational

Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 08:27:08 AM PDT

"A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies."- Dick Cheney

It is now clear to anyone paying attention, that Alberto Gonzales talks around the truth with almost every sentence he utters. Although one might become frustrated with this obstruction, it is very useful to consider his words and the intricate web they weave. I submit that the web of Gonzales statements forms a sculpter’s mold ready for casting.

Below the fold is continuing story of reasoned speculation regarding the NSA surveillance Program and the roles played by officials within the Bush administration in the program and cover-up. I submit that the Domestic Warrantless Wiretapping was a "Dark Side" program originated and directed by Dick Cheney.



-snip

To me, the most important point of this response is the choice of the word “president”. By selectively identifying the president as uninvolved in NSA programs, Gonzales opens the door as to who was authorizing the NSA programs he clearly knows about.



-snip

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/30/10595/4790

[mod mom]

34. Newsweek 2/6/2006 "The Palace Revolt:

-snip
They had no idea. Goldsmith was actually the opposite of what his detractors imagined. For nine months, from October 2003 to June 2004, he had been the central figure in a secret but intense rebellion of a small coterie of Bush administration lawyers. Their insurrection, described to NEWSWEEK by current and former administration officials who did not wish to be identified discussing confidential deliberations, is one of the most significant and intriguing untold stories of the war on terror.

These Justice Department lawyers, backed by their intrepid boss Comey, had stood up to the hard-liners, centered in the office of the vice president, who wanted to give the president virtually unlimited powers in the war on terror. Demanding that the White House stop using what they saw as farfetched rationales for riding rough-shod over the law and the Constitution, Goldsmith and the others fought to bring government spying and interrogation methods within the law. They did so at their peril; ostracized, some were denied promotions, while others left for more comfortable climes in private law firms and academia. Some went so far as to line up private lawyers in 2004, anticipating that the president's eavesdropping program would draw scrutiny from Congress, if not prosecutors. These government attorneys did not always succeed, but their efforts went a long way toward vindicating the principle of a nation of laws and not men.

The rebels were not whistle-blowers in the traditional sense. They did not want—indeed avoided—publicity. (Goldsmith confirmed public facts about himself but otherwise declined to comment. Comey also declined to comment.) They were not downtrodden career civil servants. Rather, they were conservative political appointees who had been friends and close colleagues of some of the true believers they were fighting against. They did not see the struggle in terms of black and white but in shades of gray—as painfully close calls with unavoidable pitfalls. They worried deeply about whether their principles might put Americans at home and abroad at risk. Their story has been obscured behind legalisms and the veil of secrecy over the White House. But it is a quietly dramatic profile in courage. (For its part the White House denies any internal strife. "The proposition of internal division in our fight against terrorism isn't based in fact," says Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Vice President Dick Cheney. "This administration is united in its commitment to protect Americans, defeat terrorism and grow democracy.")

The chief opponent of the rebels, though by no means the only one, was an equally obscure, but immensely powerful, lawyer-bureaucrat. Intense, workaholic (even by insane White House standards), David Addington, formerly counsel, now chief of staff to the vice president, is a righteous, ascetic public servant. According to those who know him, he does not care about fame, riches or the trappings of power. He takes the Metro to work, rather than use his White House parking pass, and refuses to even have his picture taken by the press. His habitual lunch is a bowl of gazpacho, eaten in the White House Mess. He is hardly anonymous inside the government, however. Presidential appointees quail before his volcanic temper, backed by assiduous preparation and acid sarcasm.

-snip

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11079547/site/newsweek/

[insane_cratic_gal]

7. You don't believe Georgie runs this country do you?

I think its all Uncle Dick does. Georgie is just the idiot who allowed his presidency to be over taken by the evil bastard.

Plus we all know Georgie is too stupid to string together a complete sentence, nm make executive decisions about illegal wiring taping.

[debbierlus]

8. This needs a KICK!

:kick:

[mod mom]

9. Why wasn't this the NYT headline? Isn't this real NEWS? Or did they try to slip it in

nonchalantly?

[hisownpetard]

14. Yes! i wondered the same thing - this should've been big news!! eom

[kpete]

18. motive?

what is the NYT up to - that is what I want to know?

[hisownpetard]

20. Me, too - because you don't just slip a blockbuster sentence like that

in amongst the other blah, blah blahs, especially after the heated exchange
where Schumer tried his damn'dest to get Gonzales to answer exactly that question.
So that sentence is definitely headline-worthy.

[Beetwasher]

23. Curious Indeed

n/t

[debbierlus]

10. I watched the hearings & all Dough Boy would say on this was....

I was there on behalf of the President....

Not orders of the President or anyone else, behalf; a word used to elude who gave him the instructions to go. So, no, they did not get an answer about who gave the order to send him there. They are desperately trying to avoid the role of the President & Vice President in this whole scenario.

[mod mom]

12. Let's hope Josh Marshall asks the NYT for a source. I would think the NYT would

be careful before placing the deed on cheney's shoulders.

[Harry Monroe]

13. It doesn't suprise me.

President Cheney is behind everything this Administration does. His fingerprints are everywhere and his hand is up Bush's ass manipulating the hand puppet (so the fingerprints are from either the left or right hand of Cheney, the other one being up Bush's poop chute).

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. If Bush wasn't directly involved with this, what penalty should he pay

for obstructing justice by allowing this to drag on?

[TacticalPeek]

16. There must be some mistake.

Andy Card was the President's chief of staff.

Abu Gonzales was the President's White House counsel.

How could the Vice President order the President's staff around like he was in charge?



:evilgrin:

[spanone]

19. President cheney rules the white house.

[Beetwasher]

21. Kick

Hmm, what are the implications of this? We are almost certainly headed towards the impeachment of Gonzo...

[DS1]

24. Bush was already in bed

[Peace Patriot]

27. We should know by now that something being in the NYT does not establish it

as a fact.

But it is, indeed, a peculiar item. I get the feeling--often--that our corporate/political establishment opened a Pandora's Box by supporting Dickhead and Puppet in their monstrous war and other fascist policy, and are now trying to stuff the clouds of evil that have been released back into the box.

A very difficult if not impossible task. But putting a few velvet shackles on Cheney might be part of the effort.

[Mr. Ected]

29. Expect a Retraction By Tonight

And if none is forthcoming, then the NYT editorial writer needs to be subpoenaed to testify as to his/her source.

[autorank]

32. Right action - Impeachment - wrong guy - it should be Bush Cheney

I've followed this case with some interest.

I noted that the brilliant interrogator Sen. Charles Schumer asked Gonzo about Cheney in this sequence:

Impeachment: "Did the President Ask You to Go?"
Schumer: Did the Vice President send you?

For the record, Sen. Schumer takes one last shot..

Gonzales: Senator, we were there on behalf of the president

Schumer: Did you talk to the Vice President about it?

Gonzales: We were there on behalf of the president.

Schumer: You will not answer that question as well. Is that correct?

Gonzales: We were there on behalf …if I can … I’d be would be happy to take back your question if we can respond to it we well.

Clearly, Gonzales will not answer any question that implicates Bush as ordering the visit, thus participating in a conspiracy to commit illegal acts, as outlined in Comey’s May 18, 2007 testimony before Sen. Schumer.

That's where the Cheney speculation comes from. I see it as Sen. Schumer being careful. In the big picture, Cheney is a gift here. Bush made the call to the hospital that allowed Card and then counsel to the president Gonzo to pack up and head for the hospital. Would Cheney have ordered that sequence when * was there? I doubt it. But Cheney could have been present. That makes him part of a criminal conspiracy.

...but here's the fascinating piece... Mueller's anticipation of a physical threat to Comey and his response.

Comey's Evidence of a Crime

• Don’t throw him out! Before the White House duo arrived, the tipped off Comey diverted a trip home to rush to Ashcroft’s hospital room. He reported a phone exchange with FBI Director William Mueller: “Director Mueller instructed the FBI agents present not to allow me to be removed from the room under any circumstances.” Comey, Mueller or both anticipated a danger that Comey would be physically barred from Ashcroft’s hospital room. Mueller’s order to agents showed that he wanted Comey present at any meeting with Gonzales and Card in the hospital.

Wow! "....not allow me to be removed formthe room under any circumstances." What circumstances might he have been anticipating: The President or Vice President ordering the agents to toss Comey out on his ear. Hold Cow, as Bart says, that's some real high drama.

[Duer 157099]

35. Also remember what Comey said about Clement

(although this is unrelated to the general topic of Cheney being involved)

When Comey was testifying, he said that after the hospital event, he refused to meet with the White House unless Clement were present.

So, Comey trusted Clement, or at least needed him as a witness.

Clement is likely very well informed about the whole backstory, so wouldn't that make it more likely for him to go after Gonzo? Or has he already indicated that he won't?

[caligirl]

38. KPete, take a look at kos diary here, that line may be part of WH leaked information

to help Gonzo out.http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/31/05352/8139

Rep. Conyers: Data Mining Leaked To Cover Gonzo?
by FWIW
Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 09:56:20 PM PDT

Raw Story is reporting that Monday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers sent another letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales requesting information. In that letter, Conyers suggests that the Bush Administration leaked classified information about the NSA data mining to The New York Times as a way to cover Gonzales from perjury charges.

The New York Times story, "Mining of Data Prompted Fight Over U.S. Spying," said:

... The N.S.A.’s data mining has previously been reported. But the disclosure that concerns about it figured in the March 2004 debate helps to clarify the clash this week between Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senators who accused him of misleading Congress and called for a perjury investigation...

* FWIW's diary :: ::
*

In the latest letter to Gonzales, Conyers said:

... (W)are concerned that this disclosure, stemming from 'current and former officials briefed on the program,' may simply be an effort to respond via Administration leak of potentially classified information designed to rehabilitate previous controversial testimony by you ... In this regard, we would inquire whether you or anyone in your front office has any knowledge or involvement in these leaks, and if so, who and the nature thereof...

(A)t a time when the Administration is seeking to make changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it is imperative that all members of the House Judiciary Committee be fully apprised of these controversial, and possibly unlawful, programs, and any related programs ... It is difficult to craft appropriate legislative responses unless we have all of the relevant facts concerning these programs.

Conyers asked for "all opinions, memoranda, and background materials, as well as any dissenting views, materials, and opinions regarding the same, concerning the data base program disclosed by the media yesterday."

Given the Bush track record of subterfuge and their history of leaking classified information to provide political cover, I think Conyers is on to something.

Conyers also "criticized the administration for allowing this information to leak when they failed to comply with other Congressional requests for information."

The letter was also signed by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and Rep. Robert C. Scott, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.