October 25, 2005
Run Dick. Run.
With the New York Times now reporting that Vice President Dick Cheney was the source of the Plame leak to Libby, what could be the possible fallout?
According to the article, included in Libby's notes were references to a conversation that took place between Cheney and Libby during which, Cheney revealed to Libby that Valerie Plame was Joe Wilson's wife. The notes also disclosed that Cheney fettered this information, at his request, from Tenet, then Director of the CIA.
So, based on that, we now know that Libby will be visiting a nearby prison soon for lying to investigators and lying to the federal grand jury. i'm sure he's already calling Martha Stewart for pointers.
But the new wrinkle is how Cheney might be implicated.
On June 5th, 2004, Dick Cheney was questioned by investigators relating to this case. Even though Cheney was not under oath during this questioning, lying to investigators is considered to be "Obstruction of Justice". In fact, OoJ is what Martha was convicted of, not insider trading. Martha wasn't under oath when she was questioned by investigators. Apples are apples.
Will Fitzgerald feel the same way and indict the Vice President on OoJ?
Why not? If the V.P. didn't answer the questions honestly about his knowledge of Plame's name and how the name was released, wouldn't he be held responsible too?
Fallout is fallout. Some questions will be answered when Fitzgerald issues his report. Some will not. If the V.P. isn't charged with OoJ, then I want to know why? What did he say to the investigators when he was asked about his conversations with his senior aides? Was he truthful or not.
Run Dick. Run.
Posted by john trevisani at October 25, 2005 01:10 PMNew York Times columnist John Tierney tells us in his column today that he can’t understand what this is all about. Sadly, he tries to tell us everything is a “leak” (I guess as in “everybody does it so it must be OK” logic) and says nothing about perjury or obstruction of justice.
Gee, and I remember the Republicans impeached and tried to remove from office a President who lied about his private life. Lying was such a crime back in the 90’s! But now, along with “leaks,” it’s perfectly acceptable
If Clinton can be prosecuted for lying about his sex life, then Cheney should be prosecuted if he lied about his involvement in revealing the name of a CIA spy. Any other scenario from the Republicans in Congress is absolute hypocrisy.
Posted by: steve K at October 25, 2005 01:33 PMhypocrisy is the name of the game and washington is the playing field.
the Republicans are currently winning… by a lot.
I’m not following here. What did Mr. Cheney lie about?
Posted by: George in SC at October 25, 2005 02:05 PMWell, I for one, am not at all surprised that Cheney played a role, though I am rather amazed by the fact that Fitzgerald was able to get access to notes which actually implicate him in any way shape or form!
If I might paraphrase “Scooter” when writing to Judy “in cahoots” Miller, it looks as though there is proof that “they turn(ed) (on the truth, as well as on any sense of decency or patriotism) in clusters, because their (corrupt, malicious) roots connect them.”
It is my fondest hope that Scooter, Karl and Dick are trembling like the leaves of the aspens at this very moment! :^)
I’m not following here. What did Mr. Cheney lie about?
Certainly not about his sex life, because then we know we have an impeachable offense!
John, when the New York Times says that these notes of Libby’s were previously undisclosed, they mean that they were not previously leaked to the public. The way that article is written though, you’d think that all of this was some sort of bombshell last minute discovery in Fitzgerald’s investigation. But Fitzgerald, as well as Cheney, Libby and their attorneys have known about all of this for more than a year and a half.
Libby handed over his notes and papers (which are said to be voluminous) in I believe February of 2004. Are we to believe that Fitzgerald and his staff has only just now gotten around to reading them—especially the portions which deal with Libby’s conversations about Wilson with Dick Cheney?
In any case, Cheney cannot be called the “source of the leak to Libby.” Both Cheney and Libby have the necessary security clearances to discuss these matters between themselves. The question remains WHAT did Libby know about Wilson’s wife when he talked to reporters, and this article sheds no light on that basic question.
If Libby heard, in his offical capacity, that Wilson’s wife who worked at a desk in the CIA was in part responsible for the Niger trip, it doesn’t automatically follow that he also knew her name or that she was an undercover agent, information Libby claims to have learned from reporters. We have no reason to think (and this article does not say otherwise) that Libby testified that he FIRST heard anything about Wilson’s wife from reporters.
Also, the NYT article just assume that these conversations between Libby and Cheney contradict Libby’s grand jury testimony, but this is anything but obvious.
Certainly Libby must have known what was in the notes he handed over to the Special Prosecuter.
Libby may very well be in trouble if Fitzgerald has information showing that Libby’s testimony was false—that it doesn’t square with his own notes or that it contradicts verifiable testimony from others. This NYT article, however, is as clear as mud when it comes to clearing up those questions.
Posted by: sanger at October 25, 2005 02:18 PMGeorge in SC:
I’m not following here. What did Mr. Cheney lie about?
Cheney was questioned by federal investigators in June of 2004.
He was questioned about the Plame case and who may have leaked the information.
i’ve assumed that Cheney wasn’t truthful to the investigators during that investigation.
My assumption is based on the following:
- Had he told the investigators the truth that he asked Tenet for background information on Wilson and was told that Plame was his wife. And that he told the investigators that he gave Libby that information. Then maybe the investigation may not have taken 2 years to complete. But since the investigation is dragging out so long, one can assume that some of the answers given by those involved in the case weren’t truthful.
sanger:
Cheney cannot be called the “source of the leak to Libby.” Both Cheney and Libby have the necessary security clearances to discuss these matters between themselves. The question remains WHAT did Libby know about Wilson’s wife when he talked to reporters, and this article sheds no light on that basic question.
Cheney requested the background information on Wilson, not Libby; that’s new. Cheney gave that information to Libby; that’s new. The real question is why. Why did Cheney request the background information on Wilson. What was he planning on doing with the information? Why did he forward Plame’s name to Libby?
Also, the NYT article just assume that these conversations between Libby and Cheney contradict Libby’s grand jury testimony, but this is anything but obvious.Do you recall Libby saying that he got her name from the press? If his notes contradict that, that’s his own fault. Posted by: john trevisani at October 25, 2005 02:27 PM
It was not clear how Mr. Cheney responded to the prosecutors’ questions.
Lawyers involved in the case said they had no indication that Mr. Fitzgerald was considering charging Mr. Cheney with wrongdoing. Mr. Cheney was interviewed under oath by Mr. Fitzgerald last year. It is not known what the vice president told Mr. Fitzgerald about the conversation with Mr. Libby or when Mr. Fitzgerald first learned of it.
Wow, for a minute there I thought we were going to have to impeach Cheney for perjury. But apparently, John simply forgot to read his own links.
Unless John has his own sources within the investigation whoare telling him things they haven’t told the reporters?
Posted by: TheTraveler at October 25, 2005 02:28 PMJohn.
You might want to reread the NYT article past the first paragraph.
No where does it say that they knew at the time Plame’s name. Nor does it say that they knew if she was undercover or not, something that I believe is still up for discussion as well.
Libby says that he got her name from the press. The notes detail that he heard about Wilson’s wife (but not her name) from Cheney. Where is the contradiction? Is there one?
Maybe. I don’t know. Again, as I did with Clinton I want to see the evidence, not leaked information from lawyers that I’m *sure* is unbiased and completely in line with the evidence. That’s the worse thing about this game, people are overlooking the lack of evidence and moving forward with gossip for news.
The news media in this country has become a laughing stock. Grabbing headline which would be a good one if it meshed with the details in the story. Unfortunately most people don’t read past them…
The Times reported that Libby’s notes indicate Cheney got his information about Wilson from then-CIA Director George Tenet, but said there was no indication he knew her name.Posted by: Rhinehold at October 25, 2005 02:37 PMThe notes also contain no suggestion that Cheney or Libby knew at the time of their conversation of Plame’s undercover status or that her identity was classified, the paper said.
Disclosing the identify of a covert CIA agent can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent is classified as working undercover.
The Times quoted lawyers involved in the case as saying they had no indication Fitzgerald was considering charging Cheney with a crime.
That’s the worse thing about this game, people are overlooking the lack of evidence and moving forward with gossip for news.
The news media in this country has become a laughing stock. Grabbing headline which would be a good one if it meshed with the details in the story. Unfortunately most people don’t read past them…
Well said, Rhinehold.
Posted by: TheTraveler at October 25, 2005 02:42 PMRhinegold:
No where does it say that they knew at the time Plame’s name. Nor does it say that they knew if she was undercover or not, something that I believe is still up for discussion as well.
That really has nothing at all to do with whether or not they (Cheney or Libby) were not being truthfull to investigators. This is about the narrow definition of misleading investigators. With Clinton is was about lying under oath, not about the sexual harrassment case. With Martha Stewart is was about lying to investigators not about insider trading. And with Cheney and Libby it was about lying to investigators not about whether or not they leaked the actual name of an uncover CIA agent.
Disclosing the identify of a covert CIA agent can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent is classified as working undercover.So is lying to investigators.
TheTraveler:
Unless John has his own sources within the investigation whoare telling him things they haven’t told the reporters?
There are inconsistencies. Those inconsistencies need to be explained.
Why did Cheney ask Tenet for background information on Wilson?
What did he plan on doing with that information?
Did he intend on using a proxy to discredit Wilson by disclosing his wife’s name through the press?
And with Cheney and Libby it was about lying to investigators not about whether or not they leaked the actual name of an uncover CIA agent.
An assertion that, as I pointed out, is not yet proven. If there is proof of this I’m sure an indictment will come. But I’m not about to gossip about what is missing from a leaked report by a lawyer in the case. Show me the evidence, as was done in the previous incidents, and then making the decision based on that.
Sounds resonable to me…
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 25, 2005 02:56 PMWhy did Cheney ask Tenet for background information on Wilson? What did he plan on doing with that information? Did he intend on using a proxy to discredit Wilson by disclosing his wife’s name through the press?Posted by: Rhinehold at October 25, 2005 03:01 PM1) Hard to say, we may find out. Perhaps he was asked about Wilson in a press conference and wanted to find out who the guy was? That question is unanswered and you go on to answer the question yourself, making assumptions that aren’t necessarily valid.
2) Don’t know. Maybe he planned on using it to line the kitty litter box in his house? Both are equally as plausable given the information we have.
3) Maybe. Simply seems like a desired answer to the unanswered questions to me. Ie, you assume Cheney is evil therefore his motives must be. I do not assume he is evil therefore I can’t make those assumptions about his motives.
John,
There are inconsistencies. Those inconsistencies need to be explained.
No, you only think there are inconsistencies because you have no clue as to what is actually going on in the investigation.
All you have is hearsay and (ironically) leaked information.
The reason I haven’t been posting much on this topic one way or the other is because I really don’t know what’s going on in the investigation or who’s guilty of what. Neither do you. The difference is that I am not so quick to assume guilt or innocence based simply on my political affiliation.
Posted by: TheTraveler at October 25, 2005 03:07 PMHere’s the question I had several years ago, and a question I still have about this whole mess:
Who was behind the “obvious” forgery that attempted to make it look like Iraq was attempting to obtain uranium??????
Could someone in the Bush administration have been trying to plant false evidence to build a bogus case for going to war? With this corrupt bunch, I wouldn’t put anything past them…
Posted by: Mike K. at October 25, 2005 03:07 PMyou assume Cheney is evil therefore his motives must be. I do not assume he is evil therefore I can’t make those assumptions about his motives.
No, we don’t assume he’s evil. We just want him (any everyone else involved in this matter) to come clean with the truth, no matter how embarassing it might be. They should do that in front of the prosecutors and in front of the public as well.
If Cheney, et al would just hold a press conference or two and answer questions from a wide variety of reporters, there would be no assumptions and guesswork. But that’s not the way this administration chooses to conduct business, so we are left to piece together the information we have, as best we can.
Mike,
It’s that kind of openminded evaluation of the evidence that I find refreshing from partisan political hacks.
Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 25, 2005 03:15 PMIf Cheney, et al would just hold a press conference or two and answer questions from a wide variety of reporters, there would be no assumptions and guesswork. But that’s not the way this administration chooses to conduct business, so we are left to piece together the information we have, as best we can.
Steve,
That would be kind of hard, wouldn’t it? I mean, if he did that wouldn’t he be violating any number of federal laws regarding an ONGOING criminal investigation? Would that also not hamper find out what really happened, which is the real reason for the investigation, isn’t it, not just to ‘get Cheney and Rove’?
How would you propose he do such a thing legally then?
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 25, 2005 03:17 PMMike K.
This is what I’ve seen recently from the London Telegraph.
Agent behind fake uranium documents worked for France By Bruce Johnston in Rome (Filed: 19/09/2004)Posted by: Rhinehold at October 25, 2005 03:23 PMThe Italian businessman at the centre of a furious row between France and Italy over whose intelligence service was to blame for bogus documents suggesting Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy material for nuclear bombs has admitted that he was in the pay of France.
The man, identified by an Italian news agency as Rocco Martino, was the subject of a Telegraph article earlier this month in which he was referred to by his intelligence codename, “Giacomo”.
His admission to investigating magistrates in Rome on Friday apparently confirms suggestions that - by commissioning “Giacomo” to procure and circulate documents - France was responsible for some of the information later used by Britain and the United States to promote the case for war with Iraq.
Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade “yellowcake” uranium from Niger, France was trying to “set up” Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.
… wouldn’t [Cheney] be violating any number of federal laws regarding an ONGOING criminal investigation?
Rhinehold,
Are Cheney et al under a judge’s gag order? WHAT Federal Law would they be violating if they just sat down and told US the truth? (They can skip the names of secret agents, etc.)
Maybe a lawyer out there can tell us if, at this point, Cheney et al talking to us and answering questions would violate the law. (I’m under the impression that only the grand jury has to keep its mouth shut.)
Posted by: Steve K at October 25, 2005 03:26 PM“Who was behind the “obvious†forgery that attempted to make it look like Iraq was attempting to obtain uranium??????”
Rhinehold’s post above is helpful, and Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has been very interested in this as well.
Posted by: Arr-squared at October 25, 2005 03:29 PMHmm, I don’t see that Cheney is under a gag order, only the grand jury as you indicate.
I can still think of several reasons why not to say anything until the investigation is over, including being asked to by Fitzgerald perhaps. Not just the possibility that if he does say something he shouldn’t it could compromise the investigation, but would what he might say be classified in some way?
Of course, the more obvious answer is in cases like this his lawyers are most likely telling him to say nothing of it until the investigation is over. I have no problem with him personally following that advice, it seems sound and reasonable to me. Of course, I have no problem with waiting and letting the investigation to conclude to find out what happened, so I may be a bit unique.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 25, 2005 03:35 PMThe point being, it was all fruit of the same poison tree. The phony documents was all there ever was behind the Niger canard. There has just been a lot of effort to obscure that very significant fact.
Well, that statement is not correct, at least from what we’ve known from the Butler report. Even Wilson admits that Iraq did approach Niger for what Niger believed to be yellowcake. They just did not make the deal. And further, there was evidence in use by UK intelligence (and remember, that was the basis for the 16 words, the UK intelligence) that was not based upon the forged document.
The forged document is still a story and shows a huge failure in our intelligence gathering, including the administration willing to believe a less than valid source when it meshed with what they believed and were selling, but it doesn’t make the charge completely invalid either.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 25, 2005 03:41 PMCheney and Co. are as dishonest as you can get.
With all the lies and deceptions, they’ve got to be loving the fact that the investigative energies of the world are focused on this non-issue.
Posted by: Ms Schwamp at October 25, 2005 03:43 PMMikeK, Arr-squared,
Might want to check out this explosive American Prospect article, as well:
Italy’s intelligence chief met with Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley just a month before the Niger forgeries first surfaced.Posted by: Adrienne at October 25, 2005 03:46 PM
Am I to understand that there is good lying uner oath, ala Clinton and Democrats, and there is bad lying under oath, ala Cheney and Republicans? It seems to me that if you lie under oath to a Grand Jury then you should serve time. But of course we now know that there are some that are above the law. Isn’t that right, Billy Boy.
Posted by: Steve at October 25, 2005 03:46 PMI can still think of several reasons why not to say anything:… being asked to by Fitzgerald
… his lawyers are most likely telling him to say nothing
In both cases, Cheney is under no legal obligation to keep his mouth shut.
Cheney (and the others involved) have to ask themselves: do I care more about the advice of lawyers or explaining my actions to the public?
If, as stated by John Tierney in today’s New York Times that this is really much ado about nothing, then I don’t see why anyone in the administration would feel a need (or agree to soemone else’s request) to keep quiet.
Posted by: Steve K at October 25, 2005 03:47 PMSteve,
What concerns me is what was the cover up for? In Clinton’s case, it was oral sex. In the White House cabal, it’s treason. Obviously, one of these is a crime. That should be a concern to us all.
What coverup?
Patrick, really, where is the evidence that anything was ‘covered up’? I have yet to see any evidence of any wrongdoing.
If there is, yes, it would be ‘treason’ and they should be punished to the full extent of the law. But until then gossiping about a treason charge is going a bit too far, IMO. There are lots of things I might feel inclined to suggest or discuss could have happened, but coverups and treason with no evidence? That’s just dangerous, IMO.
Steve,
You ignore the possibilities that saying anything could hinder the investigation and part of what he would have to say to answer those questions could be classified, something he wouldn’t be able to talk about anyway.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 25, 2005 04:47 PMItaly’s intelligence chief met with Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley just a month before the Niger forgeries first surfaced.
*gasp* You mean a Deputy National Security Advisor and the Intelligence chief of another country … MET?
Yeah, that’s much more damning than a confession of the person involved. :/ Good work, Aldous!
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 25, 2005 04:49 PMJohn,
“Why did Cheney ask Tenet for background information on Wilson?
What did he plan on doing with that information?”
1.Wilson goes on his little trip.
2.He comes back and starts trying to sell his story to every reporter that will listen.
3.The reporters start asking the White House who sent this nut job on this mission.
4. Cheney ask Tenet
5. Cheney tells Libby
oooooh big conspiracy.
Rhinehold:
“*gasp* You mean a Deputy National Security Advisor and the Intelligence chief of another country … MET?
Yeah, that’s much more damning than a confession of the person involved. :/ Good work, Aldous!”
Uh, I think you should read the whole article I linked to before getting your undies in a bundle, and mistakenly calling me Aldous.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 25, 2005 05:04 PMYou ignore the possibilities that saying anything could hinder the investigation and part of what he would have to say to answer those questions could be classified, something he wouldn’t be able to talk about anyway.
I consider this line of argumentation a nonissue. There is no investigation to “hinder” if, as we are led to believe by many conservatives, the whole crime is a non issue.
Alternatively, I’m at a loss to figure out how it would hurt anything if Cheney (or someone else) did speak the truth. It seems to me that’s what we are missing and what the prosecutors want to hear.
As for worrying about “classified” information, I’m not aware that it really matters. Do the prosectors have a security clearance?
I’m having a rough time figuring out why any of this is so difficult. We teach our kids to tell the truth. Why can’t our elected officials do the same? Unless they have something to hide?
Posted by: steve at October 25, 2005 05:07 PMIt seems to me that’s what we are missing and what the prosecutors want to hear.
I imagine the prosecutors are being told the truth. Otherwise they will be indicted for purjury or obstruction of justice, rightly so.
It’s the ‘stand up at the podium and tell us everything while the investigation is still going on’ that confuses me. I certainly am not expecting that. Once the investigation has concluded, yes I expect him to answer reports questions.
As for ‘conservatives saying it is a non-issue’, that’s for them to say. Personally, I think there is plenty of reason to investigate to find out exactly what happened, if there was a leak, if she was still considered undercover and how did it happen. If it is, someone should go to jail (least of all Novak). If it wasn’t illegal and nothing wrong occured, then we need to drop all of the politics and move on.
But no, I do *not* expect anyone to feed themselves to the reporters while a federal investigation is occuring, democrat or republican. Let the man do his job…
Once the investigation is over and we know the facts, THEN we can rip him to shreds…
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 25, 2005 05:15 PMjimf - Why do you call Wilson a “nut job”? He was right!!!!!! You’re using the same kind of knee-jerk smear tactics used by the Cheney, et. al.
If the administration had an open mind instead of attacking anybody who had a different point of view about going to war, we probably wouldn’t have gone to war. Two thousand US servicemen and women would be alive today, and we wouldn’t have spent billions of dollars invading a country that did not attack us.
Mike,
Come on. Was he trying to sell his story that Iraq wasn’t trying to buy nukes? If so, how many months before Val was outed?
So maybe it wasn’t nut job. The reports probably said something like “Have you seen the report from Joe Wilson” at which point the white house people would say “who?” and “did we send someone?”
Posted by: jimf at October 25, 2005 05:26 PMExcept they did, Mike.
Not on 9/11, but that’s not the only time the US has been attacked I’m afraid.
And if some on the anti-war side understood that Iraq did and was planning on attacking us again, they might see the danger that it represents.
But the no war at any costs unless it is a democratic president side of the aisle refuses to accept that and instead wants to point little holes here and there trying to make them out as gaping chasms and ignoring the meteor about to land on them.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 25, 2005 05:28 PMI’ve been attempting to follow this for some time but have found it more than confusing. I expect indictments, but am not sure who will receive them. I don’t buy into (as much as I’d like to) this vast conspiracy on the part of the administration.
It sounds to me that at most Libby and Rove may received indictments for perjury to the grand jury. And this assumes they lied under oath while testifying on some aspect of the case. I don’t believe Fitzgerald will not come forward with indictments. He could have closed things down earlier if there was no one to indict.
Does anyone have another view that can be
supported with existing media reports? I’d like to see it.
If Dick Cheney was the source of the leak, he should go the route of Spiro T. Agnew. If not, subject is closed.
Posted by: Jim T at October 25, 2005 05:31 PMOnce the investigation has concluded, yes I expect [Cheney] to answer reporters questions
care to bet on that?
Posted by: Steve K at October 25, 2005 05:32 PMWhy is it that not one person has a problem with a CIA Agent sticking her nose in politics?
If she knew so much, why didn’t she go to Tenet or come out herself IN PUBLIC before the war and say something?
Instead she and her hubby decided to play their little game.
Little game?
As I understand it, it was a valid CIA investigation using Wilson, who had knowledge of the people involved and could gain access, to determine the validity of the report. That, in and of itself is not ‘playing politics’.
It wasn’t until Wilson DID decide to go public that it became very political indeed, seeming to assert that he should have been listened too, not knowing the entire story (ie, UK intelligence had backed up the claim using other evidence that we as of yet don’t know). And he did discover that Niger was approached by Iraq, just that there was no sale at the time…
There’s a lot involved here, not exactly a black and white issue on either side, and to be quite honest it is mostly irrelevant to the larger issue. But politics is what it is and we are still discussing it several years later…
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 25, 2005 05:50 PMNot on 9/11, but that’s not the only time the US has been attacked I’m afraid.And if some on the anti-war side understood that Iraq did and was planning on attacking us again, they might see the danger that it represents.
Okay, someone refresh this old lady’s memory? When did Iraq attack us?
Posted by: womanmarine at October 25, 2005 06:39 PMTruth is an interesting word and it has many meanings throughout this post.
The most used definition however, indicates that if the truth does not come out, as a person deems necessary, then someone must be lying.
Unfortunately, The “Truth be told” has two or three meanings, of which the real truth will not be known or accepted.
We live in a cynical condemning world. A world where Truth is absent and neglected. What went wrong?
A few funny versions of Fitzmas: Fitz Navidad, Justice Wednesday, and my favorite, Ass Wednesday
Rhinehold,
Yes cover up. You say “I have yet to see any evidence of any wrongdoing.”
Then how is it you and I know the name Valerie “Plame” Wilson? If there was no wrongdoing, we wouldn’t know that name!
Posted by: Patrick Howse at October 25, 2005 08:18 PMIf Tenet told or briefed Cheney, presumably he told him the sensitivity of the information, or provided him with information about the sensitivity of the information. The question is, when Cheney told Libby, did he make his subordinate aware of the information’s sensitivity or not? Did he provide Libby with documents that spoke to this, including the INR document?
And lastly, most importantly, did Cheney tell his subordinate to disseminate this information, and when he told him, did so knowing the information was meant to be kept secret?
I have to wonder, though, where Rove got his information. Hopefully, we will learn more as the week goes by.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 25, 2005 08:23 PMStephen, how can we assume that “Tenet presumably told him [Cheney] about the sensitivity of the information?” We can’t assume it—and anyway Tenet has denied it publicly. Why think that he would be so stupid as to say one thing in public and the opposite to a grand jury? If he did that, presumably Fitgerald would fry him.
Posted by: sanger at October 25, 2005 08:57 PMHey Rhinehold, you still haven’t answered womanmarine’s question. It’s also my question. When did Iraq attack us exactly??
Posted by: r at October 25, 2005 09:45 PMr at
I’m assuming the Rhinehold was referring to an attack on one of our allies. Attacking an ally would be the same as attacking us.
Posted by: Cliff at October 25, 2005 11:13 PMAnd several times a month Iraq was launching missles at our airplanes patroling UN-designated no-fly zones. I happen to consider attempts to destroy our airplanes and kill our pilots to be attacks.
Posted by: sanger at October 25, 2005 11:20 PMSo, Cliff and Sanger, those were issues to go to war over?? Not really.
And if Rhinehold was referring to an attack on one of our allies, that should be what was said.
I would like to know which attack was referred to?
Posted by: womanmarine at October 25, 2005 11:42 PMSanger-
In all the time we were operating those no-fly zones, did you ever hear of Saddam successfully shooting down one of our jets? If what I’ve heard elsewhere is correct, they didn’t even bother to aim the things.
The No-Fly Zones were technically a violation of Iraq’s sovereignty, so technically they were within their rights to lob a missile our way. That said, Saddam probably didn’t need the crap that would come with one actually hitting, so I think they just basically lobbed them at us to show us we couldn’t invade their airspace unchallenged.
You got to know when to actually lay down the smack down. starting a war over missiles that never hit their targets would make us look just a little bit twitchy.
As for my questions, Note the “if”.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 26, 2005 01:12 AMVex said:
hypocrisy is the name of the game and washington is the playing field. the Republicans are currently winning… by a lot.
Sadly, the playing field is way much wider than just Washington or even US states.
In Iraq this field is called a battlefield. And most of the recent US foreign policy sounds like a war front place in these globalization days.
That’s sounds like a game to some, but this hypocrisy is killing. I don’t care who’s winning it but I *do* worry for the victims.
Humans or values. And we all know how values KIA toll is high.
Rhinehold,
This is what I’ve seen recently from the London Telegraph.Agent behind fake uranium documents worked for France By Bruce Johnston in Rome (Filed: 19/09/2004)
[…] by commissioning “Giacomo†to procure and circulate documents - France was responsible for some of the information later used by Britain and the United States to promote the case for war with Iraq.
Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade “yellowcake†uranium from Niger, France was trying to “set up†Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.
If it’s true, I dunno if that was France’s plan or not but in both case this forgery had prove that Intelligence agencies can be very dumb sometimes and that using such claims as so-called facts to promote a case for war is really wrong and a lie when your own intelligence agency warmed you *before*. That’s also ridiculous, too!
It has also prove that nor CIA nor MI6 nor White House (nor DGSE if it was not trap) but only IAEA knows how to use Google to quickly check some facts…
:-)
PS: I *do* hope that was a (successful) trap made by french DGSE. Otherwise, our own (I’m french BTW) intelligence service being that stupid is worrying me too much…
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 26, 2005 07:50 AMRhinehold:
Part of the Timeline goes like this:
- Oct. 2001: The CIA receives a report from a “foreign government service” - the Italians - saying that Niger had signed a deal to ship several tons of uranium to Iraq.
- Feb. 2002: The CIA receives a second report from the Italians. This report claims to contain the “verbatim text” of the agreement, which calls for Niger to ship 500 tons of yellowcake per year to Iraq. Dick Cheney learns about the report and asks for more information. The CIA sends Joe Wilson to Niger to check things out. Wilson reports that a deal between Niger and Iraq is very unlikely. The Italians continue to say that their source is reliable. The State Department is skeptical.
- (later) 2002: The deputy director of the CIA, testifying before Congress, when asked about British reports of Iraqi uranium procurement from Africa says “we don’t think they are very credible.” The president plans to give a speech in Cincinnati mentioning the African uranium, but the CIA suggests the passage be removed. George Tenet personally calls the White House to tell them the “reporting is weak.” Despite this, references to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium continue to show up in CIA documents.
- Oct. 2002: An Italian journalist provides the U.S. embassy in Rome with copies of documents showing a deal between Niger and Iraq. The embassy sends the documents to both the CIA and INR (the State Department’s intelligence arm).
The INR Iraq nuclear analyst immediately emails other intelligence analysts offering to provide copies of the documents at a meeting already scheduled for the next day. The INR analyst is suspicious of the purported agreement because “it bears a funky Emb. of Niger stamp” and because a companion document mentions a military campaign against major world powers that includes both Iran and Iraq and is being orchestrated through the Nigerian embassy in Rome. The INR analyst reports: this is “completely implausible.”
- Jan. 2003 George Bush include the uranium story in his State of the Union address despite the fact that the INR had said two weeks previously in an email that the documents were “clearly a forgery,” the CIA didn’t think British reporting on this issue was “credible,” and the uranium reporting from elsewhere in Africa was both old and “fragmentary.”
- Feb 2003: Colin Powell presents the case against Iraq before the UN. He does not include the Niger information, as the INR (as part of the State Department) knew that the information was false.
- May 2003: Wilson, not quoted by name discredits the Niger information to Nicholas Kristof.
- June 12 2003: Washington Post publishes a story about Wilson’s trip. Skooter and Cheney discuss Wilson and his wife.
- June 23, 2003: Judith Miller meets with Skooter. Libby called the meeting to discuss Wilson’s trip to Niger.
- July 6, 2003: NYT publishes Wilson’s OpEd piece critizing the Niger story. Saying that some of the information was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
- July 7, 2003: Bush and Powell go to Africa. Powell had a State Department memo about Plame. Separately, the White House retracts the Niger/Yellowcake claim.
- July 8, 2003: Rove and Novak speak. Miller meets again with Libby. Libby added new details about Plame.
- July 11, 2003: Tenet falls on the sword and says that the 16 words should never have been included in the SOTU. Matt Cooper and Rove talk. Rove notes tells Cooper that Plame worked in WMD for the CIA.
- July 12, 2003: Cooper talks with Libby. Libby confirms Rove’s report about Plame. Miller meets again with Libby about Plame. Her notebook has the name “Valerie Wilson” included in the notes.
- July 14, 2003: Novak PUBLISHES Plame’s name.
- July 21, 2003: Novak is interviewed and says that he was given the name.
- Sept. 2003: Justice Department officially opens the investigation. Cheney goes on Meet the Press (news) and says “I don’t know Joe Wilson. I’ve never met Joe Wilson… Joe Wilson-I don’t who sent Joe Wilson”. White house says the Rove had nothing to do with the leak. (news)
i posted this because we have to take into context the bigger issue. With anything, the message is king. Wilson screwed up the message and Cheney and Company went out to discredit him, rather than accept the consequences of coming clean. This administration had a choice, in 2003, to come out and say “Yes. We were wrong. What Joe Wilson said is correct.” They could have even have spun it in anyway they wanted; they could have said: “When we first suspected inaccuracies in the report WE sent Joe Wilson to investigate. And what he found was that the Niger information was incorrect.”
But no, that’s not the M.O. of this administration; they stay to message. And at that time, the message was Iraq was a nuclear threat. Joe Wilson was white noise that needed to be silenced. So they sent their attack dogs after Joe Wilson. And, like the Watergate burglaries, overlooked the fine details during that attack and now they have a mess. If Cheney learned anything it should be that the Cover-up is worse than the crime. He, for 28 months, sat quietly saying misleading things in the press (to stay on message) in an effort to distance himself and the administration from this small problem.
Sure, there’s more information to follow. But I think there are plenty of published reports already to suggest that Cheney knew in 2002 that the Niger report was bunk. And that he knew Wilson went to Niger. So when Cheney goes on television and says things like “I don’t know Joe Wilson.” It’s obviously a lie. He might not be under oath but he’s still misleading Americans. When you take the oath to be the Vice President of the United States of America, you vow to uphold the laws of the land and to be honest with the American people. Cheney chose neither.
Posted by: john trevisani at October 26, 2005 08:25 AMDiscerner,
We live in a cynical condemning world. A world where Truth is absent and neglected. What went wrong?
I can’t think of a time in human History were it was not the same. Truth is hard to get, not shareable (everyone have his own) and can hurts when said. Nothing went wrong about Truth, we just don’t value it as much as, well, Money, Energy and Freedom (in that order).
See? Nothing new, really.
I’m assuming the Rhinehold was referring to an attack on one of our allies. Attacking an ally would be the same as attacking us.
Cliff, since the famous “Us or Them” Bushism, pretty much all non-rogue-or-evil countries should be considered US allies now, right? With such logic, every country attacking any other country except Axis Of Evil ones are attacking the US. Notice the irony here.
Your and my logic here are both flawed.
That’s why there’s treaties for alliances. NATO come to mind. EU too. AFAIK, Koweit is not a NATO member, but maybe I miss some alliance treaty signed between US and Koweit assuring mutual assistance when attacked???
Oil Industry contracts don’t count, BTW.
Rhinehold,
I like most of your posts, and agree with many of them. However, if you don’t see this He said/She said issue of Plame as important, or as a non issue, then you must also think Clinton and Monica was a non issue.
Clinton did lie under oath as to his personal sex life (with a consenting adult). So you would agree this was not impeachable right?
Granted, we don’t have all the fact yet but we will soon. If the VP or Libby/Rove lied should they be thrown from office?
As for Mr. Wilson. You and many others on the right side seem to forget that Wilson is a republican and was first put into public life by the first Bush president. Wilson was not an anti war/ anti Bush person until after he filed his report and then his wife was outed by whom ever…
Rusty
Posted by: Rusty at October 26, 2005 12:55 PMRusty,
Thank you for your kind words. I have stated in this thread that if anyone did leak classified information illegally, they should be indicted and put in jail. However, I do not see the evidence that this has occured attributed to anyone yet and am waiting in anticipation of what Fitzgerald will announce.
Also, if they did pergure themselves under oath to a grand jury, yes they should be removed from office and possibly spend some time in Jail. Just as Clinton should have. Why would I think it was ok in one case and not the other? Or vice versa as I’ve seen from many on the left as well. Again, however, I do not see that they have from the available evidence, though I do not have much evidence to work from atm. Again, once the grand jury is finished I’m sure we’ll know more.
Oh, and I, again, stress that I am not ‘on the right’ so your last statement about Wilson is not directed at me, I take it?
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 26, 2005 02:08 PMJohn Trevisani — good reply to Rhinehold. Your timeline is just the kind of information people need to be reminded of about this scandal.
Posted by: Adrienne at October 26, 2005 03:35 PMRhinehold,
You are correct. I just meant the right in general. I find most of your posts to be, not to put you in a catagory, but middle of the poitical spectrum. Sometimes Right and Sometimes Left.
I just remember the Clinton mess being all blown out of proportion. If you remember (I know you do), Stars investigation started out over a number of issues, White Water, File Gate, Foster Gate etc. etc. etc. Monica came out as the investigation unfolded.
I spoke to my local DA at this time (I was a deptuty Sheriff at the time). Our county in his 20 plus years as DA had never charged a person with perjury when lying in court about an affair. Speaking mostley of divorce court type of proceedings. So though I hold Clinton to by a lier, he lied about a non criminal offense. (If it wasn’t for the blue dress he most likely would have gotten away with it)
So here we are in Rove/Libby Gate. Chances are just as Clinton, if you through enough mud against the wall, something is going to stick…
Posted by: Rusty at October 26, 2005 04:52 PM
Rusty:
“Rove/Libby Gate.”
I don’t think that’s a catchy enough name. I like Traitorgate, myself.
And on the subject of catchy names…
phx8:
“A few funny versions of Fitzmas: Fitz Navidad, Justice Wednesday, and my favorite, Ass Wednesday”
:^) It now looks as though Fitzmas is going to fall on Holy Thursday, or Good Friday!
Posted by: Adrienne at October 26, 2005 05:26 PMRusty,
Our county in his 20 plus years as DA had never charged a person with perjury when lying in court about an affair. Speaking mostley of divorce court type of proceedings.
If that were what happened, I would probably agree with you.
However, the lying came during a sexual harassment lawsuit. He was being questioned about his previous sexual history. Now, this would normally not be allowed, but early in Clinton’s administration he pushed through and signed a law extending the ability of sexual harassment courts to investigate the sexual history of the defendant to establish a pattern.
That’s a bit of a different story, isn’t it? It wasn’t a general question that he happened to trip over or decide to hide, it was a specific inquiry into his past sexual history for the purposes of the lawsuit he was a defendant of. That’s why the Bar saw it as a big deal. The fact that the left has successfully convined a number of people that it was just as you described it a testament to their ability to ‘shape the discussion’ that the Republicans are sadly lacking in.
Posted by: Rhinehold at October 26, 2005 10:18 PMRhinehold,
However, the lying came during a sexual harassment lawsuit.
However, we know that Clinton was found Not Guilty of perjury or even of obstruction of justice…
Kind of makes your claims of “lying” tenuous, and merely opinion.
