Cheney and the Elephant in the Room
It's been more than two weeks since the Vice President's chief of staff and closest adviser, Scooter Libby, was indicted on five felony counts for lying to the FBI and to a federal grand jury in connection with the Valerie Plame leak investigation. The circumstances surrounding these lies, as laid out in the indictment, suggest only one obvious motive for Libby's otherwise inexplicable behavior: to protect the Vice President. And no one has even bothered to suggest (even through anonymous sources) a plausible alternative explanation. In short, Libby's behavior reeks of cover up, and Dick Cheney is the only obvious beneficiary.
Remarkably, however, the mainstream media has carefully tip-toed around this explosive implication. I have no doubt that every single member of the Washington press corps suspects that Libby lied to protect Cheney, yet no one seems willing to acknowledge it. It's truly the elephant in the room.
In what I hope is a sign of more to come, the Washington Post actually addresses the issue in Sunday's paper, albeit in a story buried on page A6. Under the headline Libby May Have Tried to Mask Cheney's Role, Carol Leonnig and Jim VandeHei write:
First to nitpick. Is it really necessary to insert the phrase "to critics" at the beginning of this paragraph? Are "critics" really the only people capable of this simple bit of logical reasoning? In fact, doesn't the anonymous quote at the end of the paragraph demonstrate pretty clearly that the same thought has occurred to just about everyone, including those working for the White House?
That said, it's encouraging to see that someone is at least willing to acknowledge the existence of the elephant. It's also rather stunning to hear a White House aide (even if anonymously) wonder aloud whether the Vice President is involved in a criminal cover up. How often does something like that happen, especially from this White House?
Remarkably, however, the mainstream media has carefully tip-toed around this explosive implication. I have no doubt that every single member of the Washington press corps suspects that Libby lied to protect Cheney, yet no one seems willing to acknowledge it. It's truly the elephant in the room.
In what I hope is a sign of more to come, the Washington Post actually addresses the issue in Sunday's paper, albeit in a story buried on page A6. Under the headline Libby May Have Tried to Mask Cheney's Role, Carol Leonnig and Jim VandeHei write:
To critics, the timing [of Libby's alleged lies]
suggests an attempt to obscure Cheney's role,
and possibly his legal culpability. The vice
president is shown by the indictment to be
aware of and interested in Plame and her CIA
status long before her cover was blown. Even
some White House aides privately wonder
whether Libby was seeking to protect
Cheney from political embarrassment. One
of them noted with resignation, "Obviously,
the indictment speaks for itself."
First to nitpick. Is it really necessary to insert the phrase "to critics" at the beginning of this paragraph? Are "critics" really the only people capable of this simple bit of logical reasoning? In fact, doesn't the anonymous quote at the end of the paragraph demonstrate pretty clearly that the same thought has occurred to just about everyone, including those working for the White House?
That said, it's encouraging to see that someone is at least willing to acknowledge the existence of the elephant. It's also rather stunning to hear a White House aide (even if anonymously) wonder aloud whether the Vice President is involved in a criminal cover up. How often does something like that happen, especially from this White House?
posted by A.L. at 1:21 AM
7 Comments:
Let's hope that Libby's trial brings the spotlight to bear on that aspect of the evidence. I personally doubt that the VP will ever be spotted walking in to a courthouse for an arraignment, but I wouldn't be too surprised to see him resign for "health reasons", after it becomes too obvious that he was in fact involved in a criminal conspiracy.
As far as I'm aware, the Vice President is permitted to have conversations with his chief of staff.
Fitzgerald himself indicated that it was not a crime to discuss how Wilson got chosen for this trip. In fact, I didn't sense any hint of accusation toward Cheney in Fitzgerald's press conference.
And, do we know what Cheney told Fitzgerald in his interview. Since he will be a witness for the prosecution in the trial, I suspect he told Fitzgerald of his conversation w/Libby.
This is the same inappropriate specualatin that led to the talk of
--22 indictments
--5 indictments
--Hadley, Bolton, Rice indicted
Yeah, speculation so "inappropriate" that White House aides are doing it. So off the wall that said WH aide says, "Just read the indictment."
AL: take off the tinfoil hat.
How do I know they are WH sources. They aren't named. The source may be an disgruntled employee who got a poor performance review from Scooter. Or it could be someone Jim made up. It might even be the White House cook.
Am I to take the Washington Post's reporter Jim VandeHei's word for it.
He is the same reporter who went on Matthews' show a week before the indictments and breathlessly speculated that the indictments would involve pre-war intelligence.
The morning before the indictments were annonunced, he was still predicting multiple indictments.
BTW-the Post is getting killed on this story by bloggers and the New York Times.
I just want Jim to do some original reporting and find out if Cheney revealed his conversation with Libby to Fitzgerald.
That would ruin all the fun though.
I didn't say that Cheney did anything illegal. I have no idea. I simply pointed out that given the available evidence, it's perfectly logical to SUSPECT that Libby MAY HAVE been lying to protect Cheney (perhaps from something illegal, perhaps from something merely politically embarassing). If Libby did what he's accused of doing, he had to have some motive. Protecting Cheney is one of very few plausible motives that would explain such behavior. In fact, I've yet to hear any alternative motive that strikes me as equally plausible. The people who say there is no reason to suspect that Libby is protecting Cheney are being entirely disingenous.
I didn't sense any hint of accusation toward Cheney in Fitzgerald's press conference.
In the excerpt of grand jury testimony included in the indictment, the prosecutor specifically asks Libby if he lied to the FBI to cover up Cheney's role.
Out of all the hours of testimony to choose from, why do you think Fitzgerald chose to excerpt that particular moment? Just a thought ...
It's difficult to imagine a serious coverup. Cheney cannot possibly care about a legacy so covering up his actions have little meaning there. He has trained Bush on how-to-pardon so he, Rove, Libby, and others hold the ultimate get-out-of-jain card. The legalities are really just the costs of business. Their plundering will continue.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home