June 23, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.
Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.
Role of the Big Guys Is Becoming Clear in Plame Case
Posted on Feb 7, 2007
By Joe Conason
At long last, the fog of mystification generated by the Bush administration and the Washington media is lifting, so that everyone can see clearly why I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby is on trial and why his prosecution is important. Whether or not the jury eventually finds the former White House aide guilty of perjury, the evidence shows that his bosses, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, have misled the public from the very beginning about the vengeful leaking of Valerie Plame Wilson’s CIA identity.
Square, Story page, 2nd paragraph, mobile
Doubts about the candor of Bush and Cheney date all the way back to September 2003, before the appointment of the special counsel, when the president supposedly declared his sincere determination to “get to the bottom of this.”
By “this” he meant the apparent conspiracy among administration officials to reveal that Wilson was an undercover CIA officer in an effort to discredit her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. A former U.S. ambassador and national security official, he had incurred the wrath of the Bush White House by revealing what he knew about the dubious justifications for invading Iraq.
“There’s been nothing—absolutely nothing—brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement,” said Scott McClellan, then the presidential press secretary, in attempting to cover Karl Rove and the rest of the White House staff with a blanket exoneration.
Square, Site wide, Desktop
Square, Site wide, Mobile
Where does that leave the president and the vice president? Over the past several days, the outlines of Cheney’s role in the nasty attack on the Wilsons and the subsequent cover-up have become increasingly plain. He not only oversaw the activities of Libby, his chief of staff, but went so far as to order McClellan to “clear” Libby in a press briefing.
That incident came up during the testimony of David Addington, who now holds Libby’s old job as vice presidential chief of staff and was formerly counsel to the vice president. The defense brought into evidence a note written by Cheney himself explaining why he insisted that the White House press staff defend Libby just as vigorously as Rove.
The angry note said, “Not going to protect one staffer [plus] sacrifice the guy this Pres. asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.” Although Cheney had crossed out the words “this Pres.” and replaced them with the phrase “that was,” the reference to Bush remains perfectly legible—and deeply incriminating.
When the special prosecutor interviewed the president and the vice president during the summer of 2004, Bush was accompanied by private counsel and wasn’t placed under oath. But even if neither he nor Cheney was sworn during those encounters, that wouldn’t excuse them from telling the truth. To do otherwise would expose them to prosecution for making false statements to federal investigators—a felony—as well as possible counts of conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
Did the president ask Libby to take the fall for others in the White House? Did the president know the extent of the vice president’s involvement? When did he learn what Cheney, Libby, Rove and Fleischer had done to advance the scheme?
Most important, did Bush and Cheney tell the truth when special counsel Fitzgerald interrogated them about those issues? That is the inescapable question at the bottom of this case—and sooner or later, the Congress and the press must demand answers.
Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer (www.observer.com).
Banner, End of Story, Desktop
Banner, End of Story, Mobile
Watch a selection of Wibbitz videos based on Truthdig stories:
New and Improved Comments
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide