jazzoLOG: Pardoning Libby    
 Pardoning Libby8 comments
picture11 Mar 2007 @ 09:16, by Richard Carlson

Cheney might be saying, "But I was aiming at something else!" [link]

It's not what you think it is. And neither is it otherwise.

---Zen saying

The moment between before and after is called Truth.

---Katagiri Roshi

The love of the heart is the candle flame that carries us through the road of darkness.

---St. John of the Cross

The New York Times Sunday edition hits the streets in the City by mid evening. It used to get up to The Bronx by about 11:00, and it was fun to have it in the apartment, ready to go, with coffee first thing next morning. When I heard from RawStory.com that Frank Rich's column today predicts Bush will pardon Libby without blinking an eye, I wanted to read it immediately. The Times doesn't get to Athens until about noon later today, and I knew my online subscription wouldn't show me the column unless I pay for the premium service...or sign up for the free trial. What to do?

Well, there's always the wild west of the blogging world, which may be an even match for the boys playing cowboy in the White House. And sure enough, our friend in Texas who gets it all up and posted every time had the whole Rich column online by 8:00. Rozius excuses his outlaw ways with this quotation from Thomas Carlyle: "I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." OK buddy, desperate measures for desperate times.

Before we read the column, let's consider some options not mentioned there. If the pardon happens, is it the end of truth's road? Two things still would be going. First is Representative Henry Waxman's hearings in the House Oversight Committee beginning this coming week. Waxman said in interview with Ed Schultz on Friday that he is committed to carrying these hearings through no matter what happens. (You can hear the interview here [link] .) Valerie Plame, the CIA agent Libby lied about outing, definitely will be testifying---and take a look at the mood she's in in this AP photo [link] ---and special prosecutor Fitzgerald has been "invited." Waxman does have subpoena power. Hopefully at least it will be made clear that Valerie Plame did not "send" her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, to Niger and did not have the authority to do so, but mentioned him as knowledgeable about the area to the guy who did.

The second option is the lawsuit the Wilsons have filed against Cheney, Armitage, Rove, and Libby, claiming violation of civil rights. Apparently that suit will come before a judge in May, and the conspirators' attorneys will be claiming immunity. [link] I must say the courage of Joe and Valerie is some of the greatest inspiration for true liberty I've ever seen. Now thanks to Rozius Unbound here's Frank Rich on the theatre of the Libby pardon~~~

Frank Rich: Why Libby’s Pardon Is a Slam Dunk
--The New York Times, March 11, 2007

Even by Washington’s standards, few debates have been more fatuous or wasted more energy than the frenzied speculation over whether President Bush will or will not pardon Scooter Libby. Of course he will.

A president who tries to void laws he doesn’t like by encumbering them with “signing statements” and who regards the Geneva Conventions as a nonbinding technicality isn’t going to start playing by the rules now. His assertion last week that he is “pretty much going to stay out of” the Libby case is as credible as his pre-election vote of confidence in Donald Rumsfeld. The only real question about the pardon is whether Mr. Bush cares enough about his fellow Republicans’ political fortunes to delay it until after Election Day 2008.

Either way, the pardon is a must for Mr. Bush. He needs Mr. Libby to keep his mouth shut. Cheney’s Cheney knows too much about covert administration schemes far darker than the smearing of Joseph Wilson. Though Mr. Libby wrote a novel that sank without a trace a decade ago, he now has the makings of an explosive Washington tell-all that could be stranger than most fiction and far more salable.

Mr. Libby’s novel was called “The Apprentice.” His memoir could be titled “The Accomplice.” Its first chapter would open in August 2002, when he and a small cadre of administration officials including Karl Rove formed the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a secret task force to sell the Iraq war to the American people. The climactic chapter of the Libby saga unfolded last week when the guilty verdict in his trial coincided, all too fittingly, with the Congressional appearance of two Iraq veterans, one without an ear and one without an eye, to recount their subhuman treatment at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

It was WHIG’s secret machinations more than four years ago that led directly to those shredded lives. WHIG had been tasked, as The Washington Post would later uncover, to portray Iraq’s supposedly imminent threat to America with “gripping images and stories not available in the hedged and austere language of intelligence.” In other words, WHIG was to cook up the sexiest recipe for promoting the war, facts be damned. So it did, by hyping the scariest possible scenario: nuclear apocalypse. As Michael Isikoff and David Corn report in “Hubris,” it was WHIG (equipped with the slick phrase-making of the White House speechwriter Michael Gerson) that gave the administration its Orwellian bumper sticker, the constantly reiterated warning that Saddam’s “smoking gun” could be “a mushroom cloud.”

Ever since all the W.M.D. claims proved false, the administration has pleaded that it was duped by the same bad intelligence everyone else saw. But the nuclear card, the most persistent and gripping weapon in the prewar propaganda arsenal, was this White House’s own special contrivance. Mr. Libby was present at its creation. He knows what Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney knew about the manufacture of this fiction and when they knew it.

Clearly they knew it early on. The administration’s guilt (or at least embarrassment) about its lies in fomenting the war quickly drove it to hide the human price being paid for those lies. (It also tried to hide the financial cost of the war by keeping it out of the regular defense budget, but that’s another, if related, story.) The steps the White House took to keep casualties out of view were extraordinary, even as it deployed troops to decorate every presidential victory rally and gave the Pentagon free rein to exploit the sacrifices of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman in mendacious P.R. stunts.

The administration’s enforcement of a prohibition on photographs of coffins returning from Iraq was the first policy manifestation of the hide-the-carnage strategy. It was complemented by the president’s decision to break with precedent, set by Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter among others, and refuse to attend military funerals, lest he lend them a media spotlight. But Mark Benjamin, who has chronicled the mistreatment of Iraq war veterans since 2003, discovered an equally concerted effort to keep injured troops off camera. Mr. Benjamin wrote in Salon in 2005 that “flights carrying the wounded arrive in the United States only at night” and that both Walter Reed and the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda barred the press “from seeing or photographing incoming patients.”

A particularly vivid example of the extreme measures taken by the White House to cover up the war’s devastation turned up in The Washington Post’s Walter Reed exposé. Sgt. David Thomas, a Tennessee National Guard gunner with a Purple Heart and an amputated leg, found himself left off the guest list for a summer presidential ceremony honoring a fellow amputee after he said he would be wearing shorts, not pants, when occupying a front-row seat in camera range. Now we can fully appreciate that bizarre incident on C-Span in October 2003, when an anguished Cher, of all unlikely callers, phoned in to ask why administration officials, from the president down, were not being photographed with patients like those she had visited at Walter Reed. “I don’t understand why these guys are so hidden,” she said.

The answer is simple: Out of sight, out of mind was the game plan, and it has been enforced down to the tiniest instances. When HBO produced an acclaimed (and apolitical) documentary last year about military medics’ remarkable efforts to save lives in Iraq, “Baghdad ER,” Army brass at the last minute boycotted planned promotional screenings in Washington and at Fort Campbell, Ky. In a memo, Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley warned that the film, though made with Army cooperation, could endanger veterans’ health by provoking symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

The General Kiley who was so busy policing an HBO movie for its potential health hazards is the same one who did not correct the horrific real-life conditions on his watch at Walter Reed. After the Post exposé was published, he tried to spin it by boasting that most of the medical center’s rooms “were actually perfectly O.K.” and scapegoating “soldiers leaving food in their rooms” for the mice and cockroach infestations. That this guy is still surgeon general of the Army — or was as of Friday — makes you wonder what he, like Mr. Libby, has on his superiors.

Now that the country has seen the Congressional testimony of Specialist Jeremy Duncan, who has melted flesh where his ear once was, or watched the ABC newsman Bob Woodruff’s report on other neglected patients in military medical facilities far beyond Walter Reed, the White House cover-up of veterans’ care has collapsed, like so many other cover-ups necessitated by its conduct of this war. But the administration and its surrogates still won’t face up to their moral culpability.

Mary Matalin, the former Cheney flack who served with Mr. Libby on WHIG and is now on the board of his legal defense fund (its full list of donors is unknown), has been especially vocal. “Scooter didn’t do anything,” she said. “And his personal record and service are impeccable.” What Mr. Libby did — fabricating nuclear threats at WHIG and then lying under oath when he feared that sordid Pandora’s box might be pried open by the Wilson case — was despicable. Had there been no WHIG or other White House operation for drumming up fictional rationales for war, there would have been no bogus uranium from Africa in a presidential speech, no leak to commit perjury about, no amputees to shut away in filthy rooms at Walter Reed.

Listening to Ms. Matalin and her fellow apparatchiks emote publicly about the punishment being inflicted on poor Mr. Libby and his family, you wonder what world they live in. They seem clueless about how ugly their sympathy for a conniving courtier sounds against the testimony of those wounded troops and their families who bear the most searing burdens of the unnecessary war WHIG sped to market.

As is often noted, any parallels between Iraq and Vietnam do not extend to America’s treatment of its troops. No one spits at those serving in Iraq. But our “support” for the troops has often been as hypocritical as that of an administration that still fails to provide them with sufficient armor. Health care indignities, among other betrayals of returning veterans, have been reported by countless news organizations since the war began, not just this year. Many in Congress did nothing, and we as a people have often looked the other way, supporting the troops with car decals and donated phone cards while the same history repeats itself again and again.

Now the “surge” that was supposed to show results by summer is creeping inexorably into an open-ended escalation, even as Moktada al-Sadr’s militia ominously melts away, just as Iraq’s army did after the invasion in 2003, lying in wait to spring a Tet-like surprise. And still, despite Thursday’s breakthrough announcement of a credible Iraq exit blueprint by the House leadership, Congress threatens to dither. While Mr. Bush will no doubt pardon Scooter Libby without so much as a second thought, anyone else in Washington who continues to further this debacle may find it less easy to escape scot-free.

[< Back] [jazzoLOG]



11 Mar 2007 @ 16:42 by quinty : The Bush administration
took a step back with the Democratic sweep in the last election. And several Republican senators who face re-election in 2008 have stepped away from boosting the war.

For awhile the more paranoid among us (myself included) wondered just how far the Bush cadre would go in grabbing power. Perhaps (in an "it can't happen here" manner) all the way? That the inner circle is vindictive and mean should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with human nature. Bush will do whatever it takes to make himself comfortable. And if that includes pardoning Libby he won't hesitate.

A cultural note: watching Libby and his attornies enter the court house numerous times (the TV cameras apparently weren't allowed inside) Libby was one of these guys who always opened the door for everyone else to let them pass through first. Then he would follow, smiling. He always did this at the door to his limo too. The lawyers, assistants, everyone, would go first.

Now, would someone truly concerned with democracy behave in such a patronizing manner? Would it matter to him who went in first through the door.......? Just a detail, I thought, which reflects on what kind of people they are.  

12 Mar 2007 @ 02:00 by a-d : Read this first:
{link:http://www.revisionisthistory.org/page1/page5/page5.html} ("This" is "how it's "always" been with small "variations" /// my comment)

and then this: http://www.worldcantwait.net/ ....and this is what WE SHOULD DO right NOW! ( ....After all; better late than never, huh? )  

12 Mar 2007 @ 08:38 by jazzolog : Martha Borders Prophecy
Many readers undoubtedly remember Martha Borders, a much-involved NCN member with a fabulous Log, who left the site a few months ago. I sent her this piece and she wrote back as follows:

"I predicted months ago that Libby would be pardoned if convicted and it
will happen after the 2008 elections right before Bubba leaves office.
Hurray for democracy and truth!"

You may be right Martha, but if Waxman's hearings turn up impeachable crimes involving Bush (through Rove) he may be rushed into doing something earlier. If the pressure is on Cheney he always can resign, citing health, and then Bush could get away with a pardon for Libby immediately. Ed Schultz, referred to in what I wrote yesterday, felt Congress was dragging its heels because impeaching both Bush and Cheney out of office could yield Nancy Pelosi as President.

In response to Jerry's comment, I think the stakes have become higher for global capitalists now. These people believe in getting their piece of the "dream" and fortifying it against population explosion and global warming disruption, including plagues, starvation and inundation. Huddled in the castle, you always need an army out there fighting the barbarians.  

12 Mar 2007 @ 14:11 by vaxen : So?
I mean this yak yak has been going on for years and to what avail? You are all still slaves! ;) Is that what gets to ya?  

12 Mar 2007 @ 14:38 by jerryvest : Vax, don't you mean, for example,
"we" are all still slaves. And, are you suggesting that we have another Revolution? I think it is great that many of our friends will be demonstrating as noted in the link by A-D. Oops, perhaps I shouldn't get you started. :) I think that Richard's logs are right on target and do serve a purpose or why would we be reading them? I think it is too bad that several of our bright and vocal participants have left NCN. I suggest that we all try to be kind, responsive and supportive to those who remain.  

12 Mar 2007 @ 15:39 by a-d : Vaxen, Vaxen!.....
...... you were "born" into "A League of Your Own"... and that's how you have lived and still do and ..... despite ALL your words of "the other way around" ! Too bad!
But I'm still wishing you the best/A-d  

19 May 2007 @ 08:51 by jazzolog : Cheney Says Anything He Wants! Get It?
Judge Told Leak Was Part of 'Policy Dispute'
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 18, 2007; A03

Attorneys for Vice President Cheney and top White House officials told a federal judge yesterday that they cannot be held liable for anything they disclosed to reporters about covert CIA officer Valerie Plame or her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

The officials, who include senior White House adviser Karl Rove and Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, argued that the judge should dismiss a lawsuit filed by the couple that stemmed from the disclosure of Plame's identity to the media.

The suit claims that Cheney, Libby, Rove and former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage violated the couple's privacy and constitutional rights by publicly revealing Plame's identity in an effort to retaliate against Wilson. Plame's identity was disclosed in a syndicated column in July 2003, days after Wilson publicly accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence to exaggerate Iraq's nuclear threat and justify an invasion.

Libby was convicted in March of lying to a grand jury investigating the leak.

The lawyers said any conversations Cheney and the officials had about Plame with one another or with reporters were part of their normal duties because they were discussing foreign policy and engaging in an appropriate "policy dispute." Cheney's attorney went further, arguing that Cheney is legally akin to the president because of his unique government role and has absolute immunity from any lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates asked: "So you're arguing there is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- these officials could have said to reporters that would have been beyond the scope of their employment," whether the statements were true or false?

"That's true, Your Honor. Mr. Wilson was criticizing government policy," said Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil division. "These officials were responding to that criticism."

Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University law professor who is representing Wilson and Plame, said the leak was no typical policy debate. President Bush himself said that revealing Plame's identity could be illegal conduct and a firing offense, he told Bates.

Chemerinsky said that after Plame's cover was blown, the couple feared for their safety and their children's safety and Plame lost any opportunity for advancement at the CIA.

"This isn't a case where the government said mean things about Mr. Wilson. This is about revealing the secret status of his wife to punish Mr. Wilson," Chemerinsky said. "In the end, this is egregious conduct that ruined a woman's career and put a family in danger."

Bates, who expressed doubts about arguments on both sides, said he will rule in the coming weeks whether to dismiss the case.


A TON of readers' comments for the clicking on this.  

20 Jul 2007 @ 11:12 by jazzolog : Plame Suit Out: Bush Judge Loyal
The FOXNews headline reads "Hopefully 'Case Closed' for Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame Saga." John Gibson sums up the Big Story with, "In other words, the judge said to Wilson, hey, you took on the president and the vice president; they have a right to fight back. And one of the ways they are allowed to legally respond is to inform the public that the vice president of the United States did not send Joe Wilson to Niger to investigate Saddam Hussein's nuke bomb quest. It was Wilson's CIA agent wife who did it. Case closed." {link:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290060,00.html}

And who was the judge?

Plame Suit Dismissed by Controversial GOP Loyalist
By Jason Leopold and Matt Renner
t r u t h o u t | Report
Thursday 19 July 2007

A federal judge has dismissed the civil lawsuit filed against top Bush administration officials by former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. The judge, John Bates of the US District Court in Washington, DC is a Bush appointee who previously dismissed a lawsuit filed by the federal government against Vice President Dick Cheney. That suit sought access to Cheney's energy task force documents.

Since his tenure on the federal bench began six years ago, Bates's legal opinions and rulings supporting the administration's executive powers stand in stark contrast to his legal work as an assistant US attorney. He worked for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr prosecuting President Clinton's Whitewater investment deals.

In 1997, Bates successfully argued for the release of thousands of pages of White House documents related to Hillary Clinton's conversations about Whitewater.

In January 2003, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested that the judge was a hypocrite by pursuing access to White House documents when Clinton was in office while supporting Cheney's claims of executive privilege in refusing to turn over his energy task force documents to Congress.

"When that guy was working for Ken Starr, he wanted to go open the dresser drawers of the White House," Leahy said. "I guess it's a lot different when it's a Republican vice president."

Since 2001, Judge Bates has been a staunch supporter of the White House's assertion of executive privilege on a wide range of controversial legal challenges by third parties.

Bates, who was appointed by President Bush in 2001, first came to the public's attention in December 2002 when he dismissed a lawsuit filed against Cheney by the Government Accountability Office that sought access to the vice president's energy task force documents.

In that case, Bates threw out the GAO's lawsuit, stating that the GAO lacked the authority to sue the vice president, a ruling that was criticized by the legal community. On Thursday, Bates dismissed the Wilsons' lawsuit for similar reasons.

He wrote that, as a technical legal matter, the Wilsons can't sue under the Constitution. Bates added that the defendants had the right to rebut criticism aimed at the White House by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who accused the administration of twisting prewar Iraq intelligence. He said the leak of Plame's undercover CIA status to a handful of reporters was "unsavory" but simply a casualty of Wilson's criticism of the administration.

"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory," Bates wrote. "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence by speaking with members of the press, is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."

Wilson and his wife have filed a civil suit against top administration officials - among them Vice President Dick Cheney, White House Political Adviser Karl Rove and Cheney's former Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for allegedly violating his and Plame Wilson's civil rights when they disclosed her covert CIA status to the media. The defendants argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed on grounds that it was a "policy dispute." Libby was convicted and sentenced to 30 months in prison earlier this year of four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury about how he discovered that Plame Wilson was a CIA employee, and whether he discussed her role at the agency with the media. Bush commuted Libby's sentence calling it "excessive," despite the fact that it had been in line with federal sentencing guidelines.

A federal investigation led by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald later found that numerous White Officials had retaliated against and sought to discredit Joseph Wilson for publicly claiming that the administration had manipulated Iraq intelligence by telling a handful of elite Washington, DC reporters that Wilson's investigation into the Niger claims could not be trusted. The administration told the reporters that Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA and had arranged to send her husband to Niger. The officials suggested that the trip was the result of nepotism. Plame Wilson testified before Congress this year that she had had no role in selecting her husband for the mission.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, who leads Wilson's defense team, said she would immediately appeal Judge Bates's verdict.

"We disagree with the court's holding and intend to pursue this case vigorously to protect all Americans from the vindictive government officials who abuse their power for their own political ends," Sloan said in a statement. She added that Bates "recognized that the Wilson's claims 'pose important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials.'"

Wilson, the former ambassador, reacted to Bates's ruling by vowing to continue fighting.

"This case is not just about what top government officials did to Valerie and me." Wilson said. "We brought this suit because we strongly believe that politicizing intelligence ultimately serves only to undermine the security of our nation. Today's decision is just the first step in what we have always known would be a long legal battle and we are committed to seeing this case through."

Bates's support of the Bush administration's position on secrecy was instrumental in getting the judge appointed to the court set up by Congress in 1978 to monitor domestic spying immediately after the Bush administration said it would start using the court to obtain domestic surveillance warrants. Bates, who was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by Chief Justice John Roberts in February, replaced a judge who resigned in protest following news reports that the White House circumvented the court and spied on American citizens who were allegedly communicating with terrorists. As a judge on the FISA court, Bates reviews the Justice Department's applications for domestic spying activities in the US and has a final say on whether to approve the requests.

Jason Leopold is a former Los Angeles bureau chief for Dow Jones Newswire. He has written over 2,000 stories on the California energy crisis and received the Dow Jones Journalist of the Year Award in 2001 for his coverage on the issue as well as a Project Censored award in 2004. Leopold also reported extensively on Enron's downfall and was the first journalist to land an interview with former Enron president Jeffrey Skilling following Enron's bankruptcy filing in December 2001. Leopold has appeared on CNBC and National Public Radio as an expert on energy policy and has also been the keynote speaker at more than two dozen energy industry conferences around the country.

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
16 Jan 2009 @ 13:16: From Duke 'N Satch To Obama: A Personal Triumph
31 Aug 2008 @ 12:48: Election '08: You Make Me Feel So Young!
10 May 2008 @ 11:58: The Snowville Story
8 Feb 2008 @ 10:55: Take A Tip From Me
18 Dec 2007 @ 08:48: Catastrophe Is Coming
1 Sep 2007 @ 12:48: Exactly How Bush Spends Your Money
5 Jun 2007 @ 10:03: The US: One Big Drug Store
26 Dec 2006 @ 11:29: How's Your Computer?
29 Oct 2006 @ 12:00: Tortured Over The Election?
9 Jul 2006 @ 10:47: The Earth On Fire

[< Back] [jazzoLOG] [PermaLink]?