Apologies for the newsfilter. So will Condi be the new VP? Or will Bush withdraw Miers and ask her to be his VEEP as a consolation prize for the botched Supreme's nomination?
posted by spock at 8:58 PM on October 24, 2005

First it occurred to me that these guys don't really know how to insulate their superiors. Then it occurred to me that giving up Cheney might be an attempt to insulate his superior.
posted by spock at 9:02 PM on October 24, 2005

"So will Condi be the new VP?"

Cheney is not in any legal danger from this, assuming that he can't be directly tied to a conspiracy to leak Plame's name while knowing she was covert. He was almost certainly involved, but this doesn't prove that he did anything illegal. I don't see how this is a big surprise to people with regard to Cheney¡ªits significance relates to Libby's perjury, the timing of everything, and that supposedly Cheney got the info about Plame from Tenet.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:03 PM on October 24, 2005

So will Condi be the new VP?

I think this was meant jestingly, but just in case, want to point out that (as the Times article says) there's nothing illegal about two people with presumably maximal security clearance discussing this stuff. And even if there were, I think most people would feel that its pretty lame to prosecute the vice president simply for sharing some information with his chief of staff (if Cheney directed Libby to smear Wilson with the info, that's different, but there's been no confirmation of that yet). So it doesn't appear likely that this will get Cheney himself in trouble, though it may provide a strong perjury case against Libby.
posted by gsteff at 9:07 PM on October 24, 2005

The report is attributed to lawyers involved with the case. Given that Fitzgerald has been extremely tight-lipped about the case he's building so far, I can only assume those lawyers must be representing people in the White House. Now, given that as a source why would they be leaking this now? Is it perhaps that it's completely false and they want to build up speculation so that when it's just Libby and/or Rove that get indicted, people will be go along with the spin that these are small crimes that aren't worthy of prosecution?
posted by willnot at 9:08 PM on October 24, 2005

I need to preview more.
posted by gsteff at 9:08 PM on October 24, 2005

The NYT article also offhandedly mentions that Cheney testified under oath, which seems pretty noteworthy itself. Was that known already?
posted by gsteff at 9:10 PM on October 24, 2005

Yeah. When did that happen?
posted by spock at 9:13 PM on October 24, 2005

Cheney did talk to Fitzgerald in the summer of 2004, but this was not sworn testimony. Still, one critical question is whether Cheney told Fitzgerald the truth and acknowledged that he had learned of Valerie Wilson and her CIA employment (apparently from the CIA) and then passed the information to Libby. If Cheney purposefully did not tell Fitzgerald the truth--even if he was not under oath--he might be vulnerable to an obstruction of justice charge or perhaps other charges. (I am no lawyer.) But this new development raises the possibility of an orchestrated cover-up that reaches the vice president. Remember the "unindicted coconspirators" of the Watergate days? Who would believe the waiting-for-indictments period could become more intense?
-- via David Corn
posted by madamjujujive at 9:19 PM on October 24, 2005

So does that mean the Times is wrong, or do they know something?
posted by smackfu at 9:22 PM on October 24, 2005

So lemme guess, terror alert coming on in 5....4.....3...2.....1.....
posted by H. Roark at 9:31 PM on October 24, 2005

There's never been any question in my mind that Cheney was involved from the get-go. I can't imagine how anyone informed about this scandal would ever have thought otherwise. And Bush knew, too. But I've also never believed that these folks knew initially (and when the leaks were first made) that Plame was covert. So under the identities secrets act, I have never thought they were prosecutable. On the other hand, I've always been sure that once this gang realized that Plame was covert and that they probably made a big mistake, they went into spin and cover-up mode that continued once Justice began their investigation. It was always going to be in that where the they were vulnerable. I've always thought there was a possibility that, given enough proof, that a broad conspiracy charge could be brought that could involve even people like Cheney--but I've also thought, and still think, this is unlikely. Cheney may have been deeply involved in the initial decision to persecute Wilson by going after Plame, but I think his participation--at least, as far as is provable--was minimal after that.

Yeah, Bush lied and Cheney lied to the public about what they knew. I don't think this will really be that significant politically at this point. Bush only has his hard-core supporters left and they, I think, have always been perfectly happy to believe that it's possible that Bush and Cheney lied about their involvement out of necessity but don't care because they think what they did was right. Wilson, in their minds, is a bad guy. The rest of us already think badly of Bush and Cheney, especially with regard to this particular matter, so it's no big revelation.

Now, what would really be beautiful would be a) proof that Cheney instructed Libby to lie to the grand jury; and/or b) Cheney himself lied to the grand jury.

Nevertheless, don't hold your breath expecting Cheney to take the fall for this. The WH is setting Libby up to take most of the high-level blame and that's where most of the fire will be directed, because it's probably largely true that Libby was the main practical force involved, it's true that he's going to be the easiest high-level person to attack, and it's obvious that defending him politically is mostly a lost cause. Shifting as much blame as possible onto an individual is a tactic that will work.

In the end, though, the overall effect of this will be a very large nail in the coffin of this Presidency. It's dying, spectacularly, and this is a big part of it.

The real intesting possible story to watch for is that Cheney's office, WINPAC, along with INC were provably involved in the Niger memo forgery that started this whole fiasco. That is very possible in my opinion, and could be the sort of thing that Spock is (wrongly) hoping this most recent revelation is.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:35 PM on October 24, 2005

um, watergate was before my time, so maybe one of you old-timers can explain this to me -- i thought that cheney and bush had immunity? that they would have to be impeached? right?

at any rate, my guess is cheney would just step down. he's got everything he wanted (iraq, energy bill), and it sets condi up to run in 2008. what's to complain about?
posted by spiderwire at 9:36 PM on October 24, 2005

Handy reference list: people who have testified or been interviewed by Fitzgerald or by FBI agents re Plame
posted by madamjujujive at 9:39 PM on October 24, 2005

If Cheney lied or deliberately failed to disclose a material fact with intent to lie or deliberately fail to disclose said facts, at any time while speaking to the prosecutor, he is guilty of a violation of 18 U.S.C. s 1001.

And why have we had to wait for the journalists to talk? To check into Cheney cheif of staff I. Louis Libby's claim that he heard of Plame from reporters. Now we find out that this is a lie. Of course if Cheney had revealed to the prosecutor that Libby had heard about Plame from him, then there's no need to go after the reporters at all. The conclusion must be that Cheney did not tell Fitzgerald about the meeting with Libby. Now the Vice President of the United States has a very, very big problem.

Remember that on Sept. 14, 2003, the VP told Tim Russert on Meet the Press that he didn't know who sent Joe Wilson to Niger. Louis Libby's contemporary notes say very much otherwise.

As for immunity, the consensus view is that Cheney has none. The President's immunity derives from the fact that his functioning is vital to the executive branch. Cheney's is not. The view is based on a memorandum drafted by our old friend Robert Bork, who, while working for the Nixon Administration indicated that the Vice President could be indicted but the President could not. The question came up because Nixon's VP, Spiro Agnew was indicted and plead to bribery charges. Agnew claimed immunity but his motion for dismissal on the basis of immunity was denied.

A legal memo drafted by the Clinton Justice Department in 2000 came to the exact same conclusion.

Rice will never, ever be elected President of the United States.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:58 PM on October 24, 2005

G!d, I can't wait any more! When is Fitzmas going to be here!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
posted by redbeard at 9:59 PM on October 24, 2005

spiderwire, my understanding is that one can't indict a sitting vice president or president ... although nixon was named as an "unindicted co-conspiritor" ... they can be impeached, of course ... and after they leave office, they can be indicted ... unless they get a pardon from the new president

btw, watergate really was quite a spectacle ... unfortunately, all the sequels and rip-offs of the original series have gotten quite boring ...

but THIS one might be good ...
posted by pyramid termite at 10:02 PM on October 24, 2005

ironmouth ... duh ... i forgot all about agnew and his problems ... you're right ... (and i was around, i should have remembered)
posted by pyramid termite at 10:04 PM on October 24, 2005

Trust me, Pyramid Terrmite, if indicted, Cheney will move to dismiss the charges based on alleged immunity. But I doubt it will fly. But I'm a D.C. based attorney that has a professional interest in security information issues, so I've been watching this case close. Cheney did lie on Sept. 14, 2003 when he claimed he knew nothing about how Joe Wilson got the Niger assignment. Scooter's notes say otherwise. That statement could (doubt it will be) the basis for an obstruction charge.

Rove and Libby will be indicted, most likely tommorow. One thing is for sure--the White House press conference will be awesome tommorow--the best ever.

And if they go back to the forged Niger documents and prove the Administration knew they were bunk but based their claim on them anyway, Bush is done.

Look for the name Larry Franklin to pop up again in the next few days. If it does, it means curtains for this Administration.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:13 PM on October 24, 2005

This Agnew account presents a fascinating read on the last time we faced the "can a vice president be indicted" question.

I don't think there is anything preventing a VP indictment.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:13 PM on October 24, 2005

Oh, it's perjury all right.

Seriously though, no matter how closely you can taste it, for your own sanity you must remember: "Fantasies of Cheney being indicted and Bush as unindicted coconspirator are just that at this point--fantasies." It's as true today as it was four days ago.
posted by soyjoy at 10:15 PM on October 24, 2005

Incidentally, while I know that the Times isn't popular nowadays on the left, credit where credit is due. This is an impressive scoop by David Johnson, Richard Stevenson, and Douglas Jehl. I'm going to remember the names.
posted by gsteff at 10:19 PM on October 24, 2005

Since when is Reuters reputable?
posted by loquax at 10:24 PM on October 24, 2005

Ironmouth: Do tell more. Are you referring to this regarding Larry Franklin?

There is one line of inquiry with an American connection that Fitzgerald would have found it difficult to ignore. This is the claim that a mid-ranking Pentagon official, Larry Franklin, held talks with some Italian intelligence and defense officials in Rome in late 2001. Franklin has since been arrested on charges of passing classified information to staff of the pro-Israel lobby group, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. Franklin has reportedly reached a plea bargain with his prosecutor, Paul McNulty, and it would be odd if McNulty and Fitzgerald had not conferred to see if their inquiries connected. via UPI
posted by spock at 10:27 PM on October 24, 2005

Yes, that Larry Franklin. Remember he made a plea deal--who did he give up? Normally its the person passing the classified information who is the target of the probe--the person other people are asked to give up. Instead he cooperated with investigators. Wonder what he had to say? I do. Where those forged Italian documents came from is really, really big. If Bush knew they were forged but went ahead anyway . . . Even worse, if the Administration was complicit in their forgery . . .total game over.

Interestingly enough--Italy's La Repubblica came out with a story yesterday on the documents. Josh Marshall indicates that everytime that happens, damning details come out in the American press soon after . . . this thing just gets curiouser and curiouser. When this started, nobody on earth even thought Cheney was involved.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:42 PM on October 24, 2005

Tidies up soyjoy's first link: Oh, it's perjury all right.

Ironmouth, thanks for your great comments in this thread. Will you please comment in all the plame threads going forward ;-)
posted by madamjujujive at 10:56 PM on October 24, 2005

Well that's been the confusing thing about this whole unorganized cover-up conspiracy: since Wilson's NYT Op-Ed just said that Saddam hadn't successfully gotten any uranium in Africa, and Bush had only claimed that Saddam was trying to, not that he had, why the desperate and immediate need to defame Wilson? It's really never made sense.

But what if Cheney was under the impression that Wilson had information that could tie the Bush admin to the Niger-document-forgeries story? That'd ring alarm bells in the West Wing... Be pretty funny if they jumped out the window and then found out it was a false alarm! I mean funny for me, not so much for them.
posted by nicwolff at 10:57 PM on October 24, 2005

This case has never, ever been about smearing Joe Wilson. Its about who sent Joe Wilson to Africa. For the longest time, the conventional wisdom has been that the Administration was attempting to smear Wilson and/or intimidate him. I think this conventional wisdom is wrong.

First, its not much of a smear to say that your wife recommended you to go on an unpaid trip to malaria-infested West Africa to investigate some claims by calling up people you know in the Niger government. This makes no sense.

The other side of the Plame coin has always been that the White House and the Vice President specifically (See Sept. 14, 2003 Meet the Press Transcript), have denied that they did anything which resulted in Joe Wilson's trip. To me, it appears that the whole business with Valerie Plame suggesting the trip is about who sent Joe Wilson to Africa, not about smearing Wilson.

The next logical question is, of course, why the Administration has been anxious to show that they weren't associated with Joe Wilson's Niger trip. Several possibilities exist:
(1) The Administration, and Cheney specifically, want to distance themselves from the fact that their inquiries led to the trip and that they were later debriefed on the trip. This would be a problem because the claim about the yellowcake in Africa found in the State of the Union 2004 occurred almost one whole year after Joe Wilson returned from Niger and reported that there was no evidence of Iraq attempting to purchase yellowcake uranium. That would mean that they knowingly pushed a story they knew was false. I don't think the Administration could survive a proven scenario of this sort.
(2) The Administration had a role in producing or encouraging the production of the fake documents and had expected their forgery to stand up to some level of lesser inquiry. They then asked the CIA to look into the faked documents as part of this attempt to pass the information through the CIA filter, proving its "authenticity." They could claim that the CIA found out about it and they had nothing to do with it. (note that Bush claimed the British government had learned of the alleged attempts to buy yellowcake uranium. I know the Administration could not survive a claim of this sort. Impeachment and removal from office would certainly occur, regardless of who was in control in Congress.

It just makes much more sense this way. But nobody has really put this out there.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:17 PM on October 24, 2005

Clarification: it was the State of the Union address in 2003, not 2004.

Who Lied to Whom? "Why did the Administration endorse a forgery about Iraq¡¯s nuclear program?" Background from Seymour Hersh in the March 2003 New Yorker on the forged documents.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:51 PM on October 24, 2005

Thanks kirkachara--I'm running on fumes--blogging at my site, examining MTP transcripts, checking the papers for more. This is the Big One. The world is raining beat-downs on the Bush administration.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:55 PM on October 24, 2005

No worries, for the last week or so I've been feeling like, with the flood of revelations coming out, that it's the end of All the President's Men.

Timelines from FactCheck, Daily Kos, and the New York Times.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:02 AM on October 25, 2005

great job Ironmouth!
posted by tsarfan at 12:05 AM on October 25, 2005

So lemme guess, terror alert coming on in 5....4.....3...2.....1.....

Hell, Roark, I wouldn't be surprised if they let a plane or two go down. The fan is currently covered in shit.
posted by papakwanz at 12:12 AM on October 25, 2005

Interesting stuff, spock.

As to your two (interesting) points Ironmouth does it ultimately matter who pulled the trigger to send him?

There's a July, 2004 senate intelligence committee report (I understand) that says Cheney asked had for an update on the update on the Niger issue.

SOP would have been filling reports from the embassy and the CIA so the White House would have to have gotten the info when he came back no matter who sent him.

So we have Cheney wanting the information. The report documents out there giving him the information.

He asked, got an answer, then the Prez went on t.v. and said the Brits think Saddam has yellowcake.
At the very least this "bad intelligence" rhetoric should get dried up.

But - do you think those two ends of the rope could hang the administration?

I mean, Cheney doesn't have to know exactly who the company sent initially does he? He could get that from the report later (orally or on paper) if he wanted.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:24 AM on October 25, 2005

The White House cabal - Tuesday editorial in the LA Times by Lawrence Wilkerson. (bug me not)

IN PRESIDENT BUSH'S first term, some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security ¡ª including vital decisions about postwar Iraq ¡ª were made by a secretive, little-known cabal. It was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
... Its insular and secret workings were efficient and swift ¡ª not unlike the decision-making one would associate more with a dictatorship than a democracy.
posted by madamjujujive at 12:32 AM on October 25, 2005

oops, hope me, admin ... fubared that last post trying to provide a bugmenot link. Let's try without it:

The White House cabal - Tuesday editorial in the LA Times by Lawrence Wilkerson:

IN PRESIDENT BUSH'S first term, some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security ¡ª including vital decisions about postwar Iraq ¡ª were made by a secretive, little-known cabal. It was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
... Its insular and secret workings were efficient and swift ¡ª not unlike the decision-making one would associate more with a dictatorship than a democracy.
posted by madamjujujive at 12:35 AM on October 25, 2005

fixed, I hope.
posted by madamjujujive at 12:36 AM on October 25, 2005

Except that the answer was that there was no evidence to support the claims of Iraqi attempts to purchase the yellowcake. Then the Pres goes on TV.

It doesn't matter now. But there are many scenarios in which a panicked White House tries to cover its tracks then--thinking the whole enchilada is about to come apart. So they go after Wilson and claim they had nothing to do with it. Its key to look at the situation in the eyes of the putative conspirators at the time of the conspirators. They're like bank robbers who tunnel into an empty safe. The fact that there is no money in there means nothing. Its a conspiracy.

As for the Administration getting hung--if they knew the docs were forged but presented them anyway, they are done. Remember from Sy Hersh's article linked above by kirachara, that the information was presented twice to Congress in closed-door sessions in late 2002 that means that they had Joe Wilson's report in hand but went ahead anyway. And the forged documents were terrible. That's fraud in a very legal sense.

Remember Deep Throat in All the President's Men: "Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand."
posted by Ironmouth at 12:37 AM on October 25, 2005

It occurs to me that, when you tie one person to a scandalous event, it's for one of two reasons:

To throw him to the dogs to protect someone else...

or

To show him to be a heroic individual betrayed by his subordinates in a manner wholly beyond his control.

Would this make him a dupe or a hero? Only Rove knows...
posted by shmegegge at 1:03 AM on October 25, 2005

"In the end, though, the overall effect of this will be a very large nail in the coffin of this Presidency. It's dying, spectacularly, and this is a big part of it."

Honestly, does anyone see Average Joe caring about this issue? I don't. The press loves it, the democrats love it, but I don't really see anyone else caring.

The public wants black and white. Iraq is getting to be black and white. Katrina could be black and white. W's national guard service is not black and white. Neither is this really. I think Democrats these days really fail to understand what actual people care about.

Stuff like this may lower Bush's popularity a few points, but it's not going to help Democrats in 06 or 08. It sucks for Republicans to have a president in the low 40s approval, but it sucks even worse for Dems if they can't pick up any seats - or if they lose seats - in this climate.

And at this point, I'd say there's a stronger chance of that happening than of this thing causing irreperable harm to the administration.
posted by b_thinky at 2:57 AM on October 25, 2005

b_thinky, once things start to smell really fishy, because the internal WH story has become inconsistent, then it is black and white to Average Joe. That plus hearing the word "Watergate" loudly and frequently enough. What's the credible counter-story? Seriously? That Fitzgerald is a partisan hack? No, that won't fly.
posted by Pliskie at 3:18 AM on October 25, 2005

That would mean that they knowingly pushed a story they knew was false. I don't think the Administration could survive a proven scenario of this sort.

You can't seriously believe that this would be even a minor roadbump. They could and have quite easily survived lying repeatedly about the reasons to go to war and nobody cares.

Not only that but the political repercussions for that type of lying are non-existent. How many heads rolled over the stage managed kuwaiti incubator incident from Gulf War I?

There is zero chance of impeachment even if the Niger document's crayon script matches that produced by Cheney's chubby little fingers.

The dire "This administration couldn't survive X" stuff seems a bit ridiculous to me.
posted by srboisvert at 3:39 AM on October 25, 2005

Ironmouth: great analysis of the facts, but I think you're wrong on the consequences. The war was never about WMDs. Saddam gassed his own people, he's a brutal tyrant, and he's responsible for 9/11. We have always been at war with Eurasia. Generally I don't think the country has the attention span for anything that can't be explained in a short sentence. When Nixon was in office, he had to resign, or the Democratic congress would have impeached him. Bush doesn't have to, regardless of what he does, because the Congress is Republican, and would not impeach one of their own under absolutely any circumstances.
posted by cameldrv at 3:55 AM on October 25, 2005

Oh, it's perjury all right.

NIt. If Cheney wasn't sworn, it wouldn't be perjury, which is lying under oath. However, lying to prosecutors to cover up a crime is obstruction of justice, and if he talked to someone else to sort out the stories, it's now obstruction of justice and conspiracy to commit such.

Note that Clinton was impeached on both perjury and obstruction of justice (and, of course, was not convicted of either.)

Note that Shrub talked to the Grand Jury under the same circumstances at Cheney. Fitzgerald can't touch him, presidential immunity is well established, and, of course, the House would *never* impeach a republican president over such trivialities as obstruction of justice and conspiracy to commit treason.
posted by eriko at 4:12 AM on October 25, 2005

W's national guard service is not black and white.

I disagree with that example. Sell it right and it can be as "black and white" to the people as you like. Remember the Swift Boat thing? Its veracity aside, it was about holes in someone's service record. Get a bunch of guys on TV saying shit about someone, boil it down to "this guy is really bad guy" and repeat for a while. People will care.
posted by rxrfrx at 4:27 AM on October 25, 2005

"Fantasies of Cheney being indicted and Bush as unindicted coconspirator are just that at this point--fantasies."

*masturbates furiously*
posted by quonsar at 5:28 AM on October 25, 2005

The likelihood of Bush as unindicted co-conspirator is very slim unless they have White House tapes or crayon drawings of stick figures saying "Dick with fake documents riting state of unions address."
posted by Ironmouth at 5:36 AM on October 25, 2005

Hi Quonsar :o)
posted by Eirixon at 5:46 AM on October 25, 2005

So, anyone want to open a line that "Big" Dick's going to fake a heart attack when Fitz comes a-callin'?
posted by clevershark at 5:57 AM on October 25, 2005

But if Fitzgerald brings up the forgeries and says they are the reason Cheney and Crew were trying to hide stuff, then the fireworks will fly.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:06 AM on October 25, 2005

It is sad that the public must be treated like a late 1950s sitcom housewife:
"You wouldn't understand. It's complicated."
"Don't worry your pretty little head about it."
"Do I smell something burning?"
"Here. Go buy yourself a pretty hanky." sigh
posted by spock at 6:21 AM on October 25, 2005

I think Democrats these days really fail to understand what actual people care about.

So...Democrats aren't actual people?

I see what you're saying, but I hope- hope- that at this point even the non-wonks will know and care what's going on. I just hope we've reached the tipping point where reality finally cancels out spin.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 6:37 AM on October 25, 2005

It was said above that Republicans would never impeach one of their own. I don't know about that. The Iraq war is turning into a serious boondoggle and lot of them might need to distance themselves from it as much as possible.
posted by xammerboy at 7:07 AM on October 25, 2005

Of late the thing that has pissed me off so much is Kay Bailey Hutchinson's hypocrisy:

Now:
"I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn¡¯t indict on the crime so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation were not a waste of time and dollars."

Her vote then (on perjury and false testimony):
"guilty"

Disgusting.
posted by terrapin at 7:15 AM on October 25, 2005

And very related: we just reached 2000 officially dead because of all these lies.
posted by amberglow at 7:18 AM on October 25, 2005

Unraveling thread now reaches VP Cheney (NYTimes) and Reuters, (for those of you desiring a reputable news source.)
posted by spock at 8:55 PM PST - 53 comments (53 new)

Errr, didn't NYTimes and Reuters report that Iraq had WMD's? Or how there were murders and rape in the Superdome?
posted by rough ashlar at 7:19 AM on October 25, 2005

The press loves it, the democrats love it, but I don't really see anyone else caring.

Well, there is this one fellow who seems to care...

So, anyone want to open a line that "Big" Dick's going to fake a heart attack when Fitz comes a-callin'?

"NOW you done went and did it! LIZABETH! I'm comin' to join ya honey!"

(Thanks for the cleanup work, mjjj. I was thinking of the olden days, when all we had to work with was plain ol' TEXT Transfer Protocol.)
posted by soyjoy at 7:21 AM on October 25, 2005

...On July 7, 2003 -- the day after Wilson came forward and said Bush shouldn't have included in the State of the Union speech a rumour about Iraq trying to get uranium in Africa -- the White House called major media outlets (including the NYT) and in effect admitted Wilson was right. They no longer stood by those 16 words, one of the central pillars in their argument for going to war.

Isn't it germane to this story that Bush immediately caved on the central point Wilson was making -- even though this meant abandoning a crucial argument for taking this country to war? This should be front and center in every MSM story about this scandal. It's mentioned in almost none of them. This isn't just some obscure scandal about pettiness and politics and leaks. ...
posted by amberglow at 7:21 AM on October 25, 2005

does anyone see Average Joe caring about this issue? I don't

If the media smells blood, this won't matter. Play it enough times and John Q. Public will have it on their minds like some annoying 80s song they can't get out of their head. Great summary, Ironmouth.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:22 AM on October 25, 2005

I'm glad Seymour Hersh was mentioned. One shouldn't forget "The Stovepipe" by Hersh from The New Yorker, October 27, 2003. In fact, reviewing all of his Iraq reporting shows just how important his work has been to bring out the truth. The aforementioned article is unavailable on the web, but if you're lucky enough to have the Complete New Yorker, check it out.
posted by Shike at 7:35 AM on October 25, 2005

Honestly, does anyone see Average Joe caring about this issue? I don't. The press loves it, the democrats love it, but I don't really see anyone else caring. posted by b_thinky at 10:57 AM GMT on October 25

The fact that you don't give us your opinion on the substance of the matter is striking. Do you think it possible that there was an unauthorised leak (= "treason", in the common parlance)? Do you think that there was a conspiracy to cover up who did that leak? Do you think that there were any ahem, misstatements to the investigator or Grand Jury (= obstruction or perjury, in the common parlance)?

Pouring cold water is fine, b_thinky, as a parallel tactic. As your only tactic, I think that you may feel a little underperpared.

But I have to say that it was nice for you to come and play with the reality-based community - you're the only one who did from your side of the aisle today.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:51 AM on October 25, 2005

The Stovepipe.
posted by Shike at 8:06 AM on October 25, 2005

But I have to say that it was nice for you to come and play with the reality-based community - you're the only one who did from your side of the aisle today.

George W. Bush does NOT represent the conservative ideal. If members of his administration are found guilty of anything, it reflects poorly upon the administration but does NOTHING to tarnish conservative thought, which is entirely unrelated to this scandal.

Trying to turn this issue into a Democrats vs. Republicans is a losing tactic for both parties because members from both parties have been indicted in the past and their elections into office only reflect the public's ability to elect crooks. It says nothing of the public's ideology.

Conservatism and liberalism will live beyond criminal scandals and the more people like you, dash_slot-, decide to make this a political game instead of one of objective guilt or innocence, the more the entire system suffers as the public grows more cynical, fickle, and altogether stupid (not unlike many loud political posters here).
posted by SeizeTheDay at 8:20 AM on October 25, 2005

STD, that's just disingenuous. Of the last four elected GOP presidents, we're now in our third high-reaching scandal, after Watergate and Iran-Contra. Aside from Clinton getting his knob shined, what can you say about the Dems?
posted by mkultra at 8:40 AM on October 25, 2005

dash_slot- -- On the flip side of the coin, maybe Cheney did not know that Plame was covert, and was just discussing the fact that Wilson's wife was CIA in passing.

In which case, it's not treason... and the echo chamber will keep on echoing.

I tend to think it's going to be hard to prove that Cheney and/or Libby 100% for sure knew that Plame was covert, making this a lot of sturm und drang and not a lot of substance.

(Note: I still think Bush/Cheney, et al are scum of the highest order, but at this point it'd take Bush actually being filmed in the Oval Office eating Angelina Jolie's adopted Ethiopian baby with a bottle of Red Rooster sauce in one hand to get them out.)
posted by fet at 8:44 AM on October 25, 2005

what can you say about the Dems?

kerry has a horseface.
posted by quonsar at 8:45 AM on October 25, 2005

Ironmouth: The President's immunity derives from the fact that his functioning is vital to the executive branch.

Does that clause cover him in lieu of the fact that he is, without a doubt, NOT functioning? heh.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 8:57 AM on October 25, 2005

Of late the thing that has pissed me off so much is Kay Bailey Hutchinson's hypocrisy

Me too. I was thinking of writing her, but I was having a hard time using the words "fucking hypocite" in a civil manner.

Trying to turn this issue into a Democrats vs. Republicans is a losing tactic for both parties

I'm tired of the hypocrisy on both sides. I could respect Senator Hutchinson, for example, if she'd taken the position that perjury and obstruction of justice are "calculated to prevent a court and the public from discovering the truth and achieving justice in our judicial system" out of moral integrity rather than political expediency. But, like most Democratic and Republican politicians, her position changes depending on which way the wind is blowing. And it's awfully disingenuous to call this investigation "a waste of time and dollars" after Whitewater.

Tangent: Current Director of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was a special counsel for the Republicans in the Senate during Clinton's impeachment.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:58 AM on October 25, 2005

There is no chance, whatsoever, of this affecting Cheney or Bush.

No chance. At all. Ever.

The absolute most that might come of this is another of Cheney's heart attacks that allows him to step down and convalesce, while staying by the prez's side the entire time.

The current republican congress will never, ever, ever indict George W. Bush on any charge, of any crime, ever.

If there were a videotape of him telling a roomful of lawyers and cpa's that he was going to purposefully lie to the people to start an illegal war for the sole purpose of enriching his closest friends, there would STILL be no charges, of any kind.

51% of America loves this guy. I mean loves him. Worships him. He is completely and totally safe.

Yes, more and more people are becoming dissatisfied with the war in Iraq.

But, that's all. Stunning numbers of Americans are still swimmingly satisfied with Bush, despite any number of "opinion polls" you reference.

I mean, think about it for a tiny moment. If the other republicans REALLY believed that Bush was in the sub-40 range of approval, would they not all be abandoning him en masse? There is a tremendous amount of political hay to be made with Iraq, fuel prices, Katrina, etc.

But, you see no dissension. Why is that? Because America still loves Bush.

Bush is like the fuck-up uncle we all have somewhere in our family. Everyone knows he's a fuck-up, you try to help him, but he continues to fuck-up at every turn. But, you still invite him to Thanksgiving.

Most people, at least in the red states, are still quite enamored of the Bad News Bear of presidents.

Those of you who think this is going to be what makes the walls come crumblin' down are sadly misleading yourselves. It is still far from likely that democrats will even win a majority, in either house, in 2006. The "conservatization" of the U.S. is a long way from over my fellow progressives.

Expecting a downfall of the entire administration is woefully premature.

Note that I will be the happiest person in the world if I turn out to be 100% wrong.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:28 AM on October 25, 2005

Bizzare development #412: the original yellowcake documents that the italian government gave to the White House, were in turn given to the italians by a french operative.

This sounds like pure tinfoil hat territory to me, but the Telegraph is reporting it. I still think its bunk, but I've been wrong before.
posted by gsteff at 9:37 AM on October 25, 2005

mkultra, what's disingenuous is that you've deliberately avoided my point and again made this about Republicans vs. Democrats. Those administrations (including Clinton) are like any small group of people within a larger subset; they claim party loyalty to get elected and proceed to follow their personal agendas once in office. Bush's policies (like rampant budget deficits, tariffs on steel, NCLB) are not part of the Republican party's platform. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a disgrace to the Democratic party, as was Clinton's last minute pardons just days before he left the White House.

But none of these people are all-emcompassing figureheads of their respective parties. Which, again, is why I say we go after the corruption, lying, and cover-ups and ignore their party affiliation, which only seeks to divide the country further and creates a sanctimoniousness that until recently was only displayed by party zealots.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:47 AM on October 25, 2005

51% of America loves this guy.

45%, tops, and that's a Fox poll.

But wait!

Stunning numbers of Americans are still swimmingly satisfied with Bush, despite any number of 'opinion polls' you reference.

I admit it, I cited opinion polls. What are you citing?

Bush is already facing a lot of dissent from Republicans over the Miers nomination, the Senate passed the anti-torture law over his only veto threat ever, and I think he'll face more opposition from Republicans as his numbers continue to fall and they start worring more about getting re-eelected.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:10 AM on October 25, 2005

When Watergate happened, not many people cared. What made them care was that part of the MSM grew balls and kept pushing the issue. Will that happen now? I don't know.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:13 AM on October 25, 2005

Let me add this: no political party is perfect, nor more admirable than another. Political parties are machines constructed by people to aggregate power, which in turn is utilized to carry out powerful leaders' personal agendas.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:14 AM on October 25, 2005

Let's get this straight--if this scandal results in a showing that there were provable lies advanced by the administration in getting us into war--the country will go haywire. Why? Because a lot of people who supported and still support the Iraq war have their doubts, but don't want to go against their earlier decision on the subject. If they were lied to, they aren't responsible for supporting the war. That makes a big difference.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:44 AM on October 25, 2005

51% of America loves this guy.
45%, tops, and that's a Fox poll.

And as of today --

Majority of Americans Say Military Action in Iraq Was Wrong, Poll Finds

"A new Harris Interactive poll shows...[f]or the first time, a majority of Americans (53%) feels that military action in Iraq was the wrong thing to do, according to the survey of 1,833 U.S. adults, compared with 34% who feel it was right.

...Sixty-one percent of Americans say they aren't confident U.S. policies in Iraq will be successful"

posted by ericb at 11:43 AM on October 25, 2005

Fitzgerald has decided to seek indictments, those near inquiry say.
posted by ericb at 11:48 AM on October 25, 2005

One argument for not admitting the war with Iraq was a mistake (or facing the facts regarding the false justifications for war) is that it dishonors those who have served (been injured, been killed) etc. This is a bogus argument. You cannot take away their honor in serving or their sacrifice. The dishonor they do not wish to face is their own and they're hiding behind the flag, behind those servicepeople who they have been willing to sacrifice (for dishonest reasons), as well as their families and friends.
posted by spock at 11:50 AM on October 25, 2005

"Here¡¯s what Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) had to say this morning on Fox & Friends:

I was sort of misconstrued the other day, and I certainly think that if someone has lied to an investigator, of course that is a crime. It is a terrible crime.

With that statement, Hutchison has completed the flip-flop-flip."

"Sort of misconstrued" - huh?

You spin me right round, baby, right ight round like a record, baby right round round round.
posted by ericb at 11:53 AM on October 25, 2005

ericb, no amount of heinous perjury unveiled, or hypocrisy denounced, was worth having that song put in my head.
posted by Haruspex at 12:14 PM on October 25, 2005

Haruspex -- ; )
posted by ericb at 12:23 PM on October 25, 2005

using the words "fucking hypocite" in a civil manner.

Fornicating Hypocrite?
posted by rough ashlar at 12:29 PM on October 25, 2005

Nicolo Pollari, chief of Italy's military intelligence service, known as Sismi, brought the Niger yellowcake story directly to the White House after his insistent overtures had been rejected by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2001 and 2002. Sismi had reported to the CIA on October 15, 2001, that Iraq had sought yellowcake in Niger, a report it also plied on British intelligence, creating an echo that the Niger forgeries themselves purported to amplify before they were exposed as a hoax.

Today's exclusive report in La Repubblica reveals that Pollari met secretly in Washington on September 9, 2002, with then¨CDeputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Their secret meeting came at a critical moment in the White House campaign to convince Congress and the American public that war in Iraq was necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones confirmed the meeting to the Prospect on Tuesday. via TPM
posted by caddis at 12:57 PM on October 25, 2005

The fact that you don't give us your opinion on the substance of the matter is striking.

Why is it striking that I don't have an opinion on this? It's a partisan issue. I'm not partisan, so I don't care.

As long as Democrats fail to address the real issues, Average Joe won't listen. And that means Republicans will continue to win, regardless of Bush's popularity.

The Democrats are using this issue to protest the Iraq war on a technicality. Why don't they have the balls to call Bullshit on the whole thing? Dems hate the Iraq war but are afraid to say it.
posted by b_thinky at 1:18 PM on October 25, 2005

"didn't NYTimes and Reuters report that Iraq had WMD's? "
posted by rough ashlar at 7:19 AM PST on October 25 [!]


Lotsa people thought Iraq had WMDs ...except for the CIA.


¡°George W. Bush does NOT represent the conservative ideal.¡±
posted by SeizeTheDay at 8:20 AM PST on October 25 [!

Thank you, SeizeTheDay


"This is a bogus argument. You cannot take away their honor in serving or their sacrifice."
posted by spock at 11:50 AM PST on October 25 [!]

Thank you, spock.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:21 PM on October 25, 2005

¡°As long as Democrats fail to address the real issues, Average Joe won't listen¡±
posted by b_thinky at 1:18 PM PST on October 25 [!]


I think I understand what you¡¯re saying.
Define ¡®real issue¡¯ though.


From my perspective betraying even one person for whatever cause however noble (in this case it wasn¡¯t) sabotages the ideals you are supposed to embody.

If I take what I believe to be your meaning, this is a thin more isolated issue as compared to things that affect large groups of people directly (?)


If that is the case I¡¯d agree. I, and many folks here, place a lot of weight on outing Plame as an instrument of revenge for not playing ball in the lie to manufacture the war.
But I¡¯d concede that most people are more concerned with the state of their roads, their jobs, etc. than this, and Mefi¡¯ers on both sides are in the minority (except for those not commenting/reading this thread).
posted by Smedleyman at 1:27 PM on October 25, 2005

Stunning numbers of Americans are still swimmingly satisfied with Bush

51% of America loves this guy

Far from it!

Poll: Bush would lose an election if held this year

"A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election were held this year, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday.

In the latest poll, 55 percent of the respondents said that they would vote for the Democratic candidate if Bush were again running for the presidency this year.

... More than half, 57 percent, said they don't agree with the president's views on issues that are important to them.

... a majority of those questioned felt the Democrats could do a better job than Republicans at handling health care (59 percent to 30 percent), Social Security (56 percent to 33 percent), gasoline prices (51 percent to 31 percent) and the economy (50 percent to 38 percent).

Forty-six percent also believed Democrats could do better at handling Iraq, while 40 percent said the GOP would do better.

In 2003, 53 percent said Republicans would better handle Iraq and only 29 percent believed the Democrats would do better." [CNN | October 25, 2005]

posted by ericb at 1:34 PM on October 25, 2005

From the Washington Note...
posted by scody at 2:14 PM on October 25, 2005

That blog rumor says the indictments coming tomorrow will be sealed. To further speculate on that point, see David Corn:

It could be that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald might choose to file sealed indictments before the grand jury expires at the end of next week. That would mean that the names of the indicted would be unknown to the public--unless the information leaked.

Why would Fitzgerald do this? Perhaps he has not finished investigating. ...In such a case, Fitzgerald might want to bank several indictments, impanel a new grand jury, and keep digging. This is--needless to say--speculation. But anyone waiting anxiously for indictments should keep this scenario in mind.
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:43 PM on October 25, 2005

using the words "fucking hypocite" in a civil manner.

Fornicating Hypocrite?

Screwy misconstrue-ee?
posted by soyjoy at 2:50 PM on October 25, 2005

I don't think he needs to impanel a new grand jury - just extend the current one. But I think you are on to something. If he files no indictments now, he appears to have nothing (or at least needs more time). By filing sealed indictments, it seems to me that he increases the pressure on certain key individuals to get more information on those that he may not yet have. This makes sense only if the Grand Jury is extended rather than being allowed to expire.
posted by spock at 2:58 PM on October 25, 2005

Fitzmas delayed?
posted by caddis at 3:18 PM on October 25, 2005

Tangent, but to address those wingnuts who still maintain that the outing of Valerie Plame was no big deal and/or claim that she wasn't a covert agent when the outing occured...from CNN's Situation Room this afternoon:

WOLF BLITZER, Host OF CNN's Situation Room: All right, Jeff, hold on a second. David Ensor, our national security correspondent, is still here. I know you've been looking into this question. The CIA -- does the CIA believe that there was damage done to U.S. national security as a result of Valerie Plame Wilson's name being leaked?

DAVID ENSOR, CNN National Security Correspondent: I'm told that in the day that it was leaked, there was a quick look done, as there would routinely be at whether there was damage. Officials simply won't go into the details. But I did speak to one official who said yes, there was damage. This woman had a long career and she was posing as someone else and all those people who saw her now know she wasn't the person they thought that they were dealing with. So there was damage.

BLITZER: Thought they were dealing with an energy consultant and she was really a CIA spy.

ENSOR: Exactly.

posted by ericb at 4:10 PM on October 25, 2005

Also -- in the last half-hour -- NBC Nightly News reported that they learned from sources close to the situation that investigators called in a number of mid-level White House staffers today to ask further questions likely about Karl Rove. So, indeed, Fitzmas may be delayed. Who knows? It's all speculation for anyone outside of the grand jury and Fitzgerald and his staff.
posted by ericb at 4:15 PM on October 25, 2005

So is Mr. X Cheney? And why haven't Russert, Matthews, Mitchell or any of the others done their jobs and informed us?
posted by amberglow at 4:29 PM on October 25, 2005

CBS Evening News Reports Fitzgerald Will Make His Decision Known Tomorrow

CBS¡¯ JOHN ROBERTS: Lawyers familiar with the case think Wednesday is when special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will make known his decision, and that there will be indictments. Supporters say Rove and the vice president¡¯s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, are in legal jeopardy. But they insisted today the two are secondary players, that it was an unidentified Mr. X who actually gave the name of CIA agent V alerie Plame to reporters. Fitzgerald knows who Mr. X is, they say, and if he isn¡¯t indicted, there¡¯s no way Rove or Libby should be. But charges may not focus on the leak at all. Obstruction of justice or perjury are real possibilities. Did Rove or Libby change statements made under oath? Did they deliberately leave critical facts out of their testimony or did they honestly forget? Some Republicans urged Rove to step down if indicted. Not a happy prospect for president Bush.

...BOB SCHIEFFER: John, I am very interested in Mr. X. Is there any clue or hint as to whether he be - maybe someone who outranks Libby and Rove or would he be a lower-ranking official?

ROBERTS: The best guess is that Mr. X, even though his name is not known and some people are just speculating on who he might be or she might be, is somebody who is actually outside the White House, and in that case would be of a lower rank that both Rove and Libby.

posted by ericb at 4:30 PM on October 25, 2005

Or, what amberglow posted! ;)
posted by ericb at 4:31 PM on October 25, 2005

and--Can Bush survive in a post-Rove world?

Not likely.
posted by amberglow at 4:32 PM on October 25, 2005

what can you say about the Dems?

Well, to be fair, Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs and Johnson had Vietnam.
posted by absalom at 5:14 PM on October 25, 2005

So Ironmouth (still here?) do you think that Larry Franklin could be "Mr. X"?
posted by spock at 5:15 PM on October 25, 2005

This, from the LAT, is really weird:


WASHINGTON -- As his investigation nears a conclusion, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has returned his attention to White House adviser Karl Rove, interviewing a Rove colleague with detailed questions about contacts that President Bush's close aide had with reporters in the days leading up to the outing of a covert CIA officer.

Fitzgerald has also dispatched FBI agents to comb the CIA agent's residential neighborhood in Washington, asking neighbors again whether they were aware ¡ª before her name appeared in a syndicated column ¡ª that the agent, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.

Why would they be interviewing neighbors now, after so long?
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:08 PM on October 25, 2005

Why would they be interviewing neighbors now, after so long?

From the L.A. Times article:

"'It appeared to me the prosecutor was trying to button up any holes that were remaining,' a lawyer familiar with the case said.

...The flurry of last-minute questioning struck some observers as a way for the prosecutor to test arguments that defense lawyers may have raised in the waning hours of the investigation to fend off charges.

Some of the questioning indicated that Fitzgerald may still be considering indictments on charges that some have viewed as too difficult to pursue, including a prosecution under a federal law that makes it a felony to reveal the name of a covert agent.

...others said they suspected that Fitzgerald was just being meticulous, and that he had previously made a judgment about her status and was, in an abundance of caution, looking to further corroborate that belief. The questioning seemed 'confirmatory,' said one person who was interviewed but who declined to be identified. Some neighbors said they had been interviewed previously by the FBI.

If anything we know about Fitzgerald is he is that he is diligent and prone to "attention for detail."
posted by ericb at 6:43 PM on October 25, 2005

" '[Patrick Fitzerald] is dogged and he is tenacious,' says former independent counsel Robert Ray. 'But he's also responsible.'

...As for political heat, Fitzgerald has no party affiliation.

'I think most people who know him well have come to the conclusion, frankly, that if anything he's apolitical,' says former independent counsel Ray.

Fitzgerald is a Bush appointee and President Bush said Fitzgerald has done his work 'in a dignified manner,' which could make it harder for the White House to criticize Fitzgerald's findings if anyone is indicted. [NBC Nightly News | October 25, 2005]
posted by ericb at 6:47 PM on October 25, 2005

is he is that he is diligent and prone to "attention for detail." ;-)
posted by ericb at 6:49 PM on October 25, 2005

From one of the latest Salon articles (and a gazillion other news stories on the subject): "So in the summer of 2003, White House officials leaked Plame's identity to the press in an effort to discredit her husband."

Discrediting Wilson was only a side benefit. It was the CIA itself that they intended to discredit (and muzzle) for failing to provide the rubberstamp authorization for invading Iraq that they wanted. Wilson (and his wife) were simply collateral damage.
posted by spock at 7:30 PM on October 25, 2005

Roll Call: Fitzgerald visited Rove's attorney Tuesday in leak case.
posted by ericb at 8:25 PM on October 25, 2005

Wilson (and his wife) were simply collateral damage.

You're forgetting that this is a cabal, which needs to make examples of people in order to intimidate others. I get your point about the CIA, but I think you're underestimating how purely, ruthlessly evil this gang is.

(God, I hope those indictments aren't sealed. Imagine running down to the Tree on Christmas morning and starting to pull the big present out only to find it has a tag that says "Do Not Open Till Valentine's Day!"...)
posted by soyjoy at 8:46 PM on October 25, 2005

Spock is quite right that a big portion of the blowback against Wilson was a tie-in to a general discrediting of the CIA. It seems to me that conventional wisdom these days is now that we can safely include the CIA in the "gung-ho" camp regarding WMDs and the invasion of Iraq, but it's not a view I share. There was only isolated intelligence and institutional support for the administration's view on Iraq at the CIA and a large part of the admin's strategy was always to a) side-step the CIA by way of other intelligence resources that were more friendly to their point of view; and b) smear the CIA when possible as being equally tainted as the State Dept. by the worldview that the neocons so strongly despised. Always keep in mind that the CIA had already evaluated this intelligence and judged it to be unreliable.

It's not right to say that the leak about Plame was primarily aimed at the CIA. It wasn't. It was aimed primarily at Wilson who had essentially attacked the administration in a way that both blindsided them and made them feel betrayed, and because Wilson's criticism was aimed at a spot where they were very vulnerable. Whether or not Cheney's and Rumsfeld's cadre via the DIA and Chalabi et al were involved in the actual forgery of the Niger intel, it's the case that they both relied heavily on it and knew that it was flimsy. They had to fight back against Wilson's challenge, and they did.

The indictments will be sealed, by the way, soyjoy. I think Ari is one of the people who will be indicted. Or he's been the one who's been cooperating with Fitzgerald.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:34 PM on October 25, 2005

I have to acknowledged Ironmouth's and Ethereal Bligh's contributions to this thread. Their insights and perspectives have been most illuminating to me. Thanks.
posted by ericb at 9:44 PM on October 25, 2005

*acknowledged* ;-)
posted by ericb at 9:46 PM on October 25, 2005

Cut it out, Mr. Attention for detail.

So if the indictments are sealed, will they be leaked? Even if Fitzgerald is so meticulous, how long will the indictees be unknown? If we have a certain number of likely players and we know who didn't get indicted can we play a sudoku-like game of elimination to nail down exactly who's in the deep shit? Or can we just watch to see who's getting frog-marched?
posted by soyjoy at 10:54 PM on October 25, 2005

Thanks. This is all about keeping up the pressure. Watch TV featuring these stories, write in saying you want more of these stories. The media needs to be pushed.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:35 AM on October 26, 2005

So if the indictments are sealed, will they be leaked?

Count on it. No waiting til Valentine's Day here. Just think of how much furious leaking has been happening in this leak case in just the last two days!
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:06 AM on October 26, 2005

Only one in 10 Americans said they believe Bush administration officials did nothing illegal or unethical in connection with the leaking of a CIA operative's identity, according to a national poll released Tuesday.

Poll: Few doubt wrongdoing in CIA leak

Let's assume for a second that Rove and Libby did knowingly tell journalists that Valerie Plame was a CIA "covert operative" in order to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Exposing a secret agent is a crime. The chances that it was authorized by the president himself are small; the chances that his authorization was recorded on tape a la former President Nixon are even smaller. So this is unlikely to be the next Watergate.

Still, if his most trusted adviser goes down, the president will not merely be a lame duck. He will be a dead duck, and his enemies will be able to slice him off the bone. The second reason this squall is likely to be a hurricane is that so many people have an incentive to make it one. Watergate not only destroyed Nixon, it also made the reputations of prosecutors such as Archibald Cox and reporters such as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. At the same time, aggrieved sources within an administration have a powerful incentive to leak. We finally learned who "Deep Throat" was this year ¡ª only because W. Mark Felt decided to 'fess up after 30-plus years. So let's just ask ourselves how many people ¡ª particularly those associated with intelligence gathering ¡ª might have a grudge against Bush. I should think there are enough potential Deep Throats in Washington today to form a baritone choir.

The third reason to expect a hurricane is simply poetic justice. The ancient Greeks had a term for those who are intoxicated by their own power into thinking themselves equal to the gods. That word was "hubris." Those who succumb to it are doomed to be brought low by the implacable goddess Nemesis.

Bush's approval ratings are down to 39 percent ¡ª the lowest of his presidency. The numbers can further fall as he continues his bizarre re-enactment of the 1970s, complete with military quagmire, oil-price shock and now a hurricane-force scandal.

Niall Ferguson: Squalls hint at hurricane heading for White House
posted by y2karl at 9:11 AM on October 26, 2005

Raw Story says Libby and Rove are going down for perjury and obstruction and that Rove rejected a deal to plead only to perjury.



Some people are planning celebratory dinners. Dessert: Yellow Cake, natch.
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:28 AM on October 26, 2005

NYTimes issued correction on the "Cheney under oath" thing: "He was not under oath."
posted by smackfu at 11:27 AM on October 26, 2005

If Bush gets pushed over the edge, I'd dust his back and expect to find Colin Powell and George Tenet's fingerprints. Note to self: do not fuck with the CIA.

The Raw Story article also says, "Two other officials, who are not employees in the White House, are also expected to face indictments." Ari Fleischer, I'm looking in your direction.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:47 PM on October 26, 2005

Why did Ari resign?
posted by caddis at 1:29 PM on October 26, 2005

Note: Fact that Cheney's questioning was not under oath is meaningless. 18 U.S.C. s 1001 prohibits lying or omitting a material fact while answering questions posed by a federal officer while engaged in his or her duties. 5 year felony.

But this case isn't about that. Its about a set of faked documents from the country of Niger. Let's hope the press continues on that road. Because if it comes out that those documents were either faked by U.S. sources or that the Bush Administration was aware they were fake and presented them as real nonetheless--well, you have the biggest political scandal in history. Not U.S. history. History.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:11 PM on October 26, 2005

Cheney, Libby Blocked Papers To Senate Intelligence Panel

"Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources.

...The new information that Cheney and Libby blocked information to the Senate Intelligence Committee further underscores the central role played by the vice president's office in trying to blunt criticism that the Bush administration exaggerated intelligence data to make the case to go to war.

...Had the withheld information been turned over, according to administration and congressional sources, it likely would have shifted a portion of the blame away from the intelligence agencies to the Bush administration as to who was responsible for the erroneous information being presented to the American public, Congress, and the international community." [National Journal | October 27, 2005]

posted by ericb at 2:09 PM on October 27, 2005

Did Tenet Resign Because of Leak Scandal ?
posted by ericb at 2:17 PM on October 27, 2005

When will the Fitz hit the fan?
posted by kirkaracha at 4:17 PM on October 27, 2005

But this case isn't about that. Its about a set of faked documents from the country of Niger. Let's hope the press continues on that road. Because if it comes out that those documents were either faked by U.S. sources or that the Bush Administration was aware they were fake and presented them as real nonetheless--well, you have the biggest political scandal in history.

I thought they were faked Italian documents about Iraq and Niger in the 80s (when Saddam was our buddy)?
posted by amberglow at 4:20 PM on October 27, 2005

When will the Fitz hit the fan?

When there's Treason's Greetings at Fitzmas.
posted by ericb at 7:26 PM on October 27, 2005

Aide to Cheney Appears Likely to Be Indicted; Rove Under Scrutiny

"Associates of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, expected an indictment on Friday charging him with making false statements to the grand jury in the C.I.A. leak inquiry, lawyers in the case said Thursday.

Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday." [New York Times | October 28, 2005]

posted by ericb at 8:00 PM on October 27, 2005

CIA Leak Investigation Reaches Finish Line

"The White House -- and lawyers for White House advisers Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- braced for the possibility of indictments, although there were signs that Fitzgerald was keeping them guessing to the bitter end.

People close to the investigation said that, as of late Thursday afternoon, Rove had received no notice that he was going to be indicted. Some observers took that as a sign that the longtime Bush strategist might emerge from the investigation without being charged.

But others said that Fitzgerald might be waiting until Friday to alert those being charged to reduce the chances of last-minute leaks about his intentions." [Los Angeles Times | October 28, 2005]

Your guess is as good as mine! Libby indictment - likely? Rove - who knows?
posted by ericb at 8:03 PM on October 27, 2005

At Root of Leak Probe Is Prewar Dispute

"At the root of the investigation into the leaking of the identity of a CIA operative is a feud between the Central Intelligence Agency and the White House over whether top administration officials politicized intelligence information in the buildup to the Iraq war.

...With charges likely to be filed as early as today, the ripple effects of that feud are still being felt.

...Now some intelligence professionals think indictments might help clear the air by effectively penalizing administration aides for intruding into intelligence matters and prompting the White House to tread more carefully. And that, say current and former intelligence officials, might embolden the CIA to be more forceful in its analysis, without fearing information would be twisted.

Any indictments would be a 'huge deal ... because they will help restore hope that the system works,' said Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counterterrorism official at the State Department. [Wall Street Journal | October 28, 2005]

posted by ericb at 9:00 PM on October 27, 2005

Libby Indictment Likely Over Leak; Rove in Jeopardy.
posted by ericb at 11:23 PM on October 27, 2005

Amberglow--sorry bum sentence.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:40 PM on October 27, 2005

Spock--re: Mr. X--My money's on Fred Flietz.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:44 PM on October 27, 2005