Bush: Leaker-in-Chief?
Bush as Johnson + Nixon
Irv Lewis Libby, the former chief of staff for trigger-happy VP Richard Bruce Cheney is now alleging that Cheney told him that W. himself authorized the leak of classified Iraq information. Although he is probably referring to the leak of the National Intelligence Estimate, his implication is that once he was given the go-ahead by Bush and Cheney to leak classified information for political purposes, tat led to his outing of a covert CIA operative's name. Both leaks were part of White House damage control over the Iraq scandal breaking in spring-summer 2003, as it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Bush had invaded the wrong country for the wrong reason. Ooops.
I have explained the whole scandal here, with pictures and links, and readers have told me that it is useful.
Late night comedian Conan O'Brian does a shtick where he has a silly computer program meld the faces of two celebrities to see what their kids would look like, only the program works to exaggerate the features of each, so that you always have a freakish result.
The news today makes me think that it would be worthwhile melding Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon to see if the result looked like W. Because George W. Bush faces the weight of a long Asian land war gone badly wrong, just as Johnson did. And he faces the charges of high-level corruption and illegal wiretapping that dogged Richard Nixon. He has become both "Mah feller Amurcans" Bush and "tricky Georgie." W. has survived all this relatively well, given the dreadful facts of it.
Unlike Johnson, he does not operate a hated draft, but depends on gung-ho volunteers (some of whom are a little too gung-ho and have made a lot of unnecessary trouble in Iraq by shooting a lot of people for DWI, Driving While Iraqi). The volunteers' families and friends are not clamoring for an end to the war with the fervor that those of the draftees did in the 1960s and early 1970s. Johnson was in the end defeated by powerful challenges from within his own party, which caused him not to seek another term. Bush faced no such challenge in '04. His party has gone along with him. Of course, Tom DeLay is not exactly a paragon of virtue. The corruption of the party itself, which has few Robert F. Kennedys, has abetted Bush's continued dominance and free ride for his crimes.
Nixon faced an FBI willing to leak to the press to get him, a Supreme Court willing to order him to turn over tapes of his conversations, and a Democratic Congress willing to impeach him (well, a lot of Republicans were willing to, by the end, too). It is pretty clear that Scalia, Thomas and Alito would have all voted against making Nixon turn over his tapes, and maybe Roberts, as well. It is a different court, one that is willing to show deference to the imperial presidency, as Rehnquist openly admitted before he went out. Bush's party dominates both houses of congress, as well. The Senate Intelligence Committee under Pat Roberts has dragged its feet in investigating Bush administration crimes. The only strike against Bush is that the FBI still has a good deal of independence and has every reason to want to hold administration officials accountable for leaking Plame's name, since ruining undercover agents' careers can get them and their family's killed. It is mainly the FBI and an independent prosecutor (the appointment of which Bush resisted) that have shown integrity with regard to the Bush scandals, whether the AIPAC spying affair or Libbygate. (People call it Plamegate, but it is Libby who is the scandal here).
David Corn had speculated that Libby would graymail the government to stop his prosecution, by demanding all sorts of classified information that the Bush administration would not want to turn over. But I'd say that Libby has gone from graymail a step further to blackmail. He has signalled that he is not going down by himself, is not going to be a good soldier, and will drag Bush himself down with him if he can.
By the way, isn't anyone else outraged that Karl Rove remains in the White House after it was openly revealed that he personally outed an undercover CIA operative for petty political purposes? Why isn't the press demanding his resignation every day?
I predicted this "every man for himself" scenario last November. It seemed to me that the loyal thing to have done would have been to plead guilty, take three years of jail, and then have Bush pardon Libby just as he was going out of office. Libby is loyal to no one but himself, obviously.
For more on background see my piece, "All the Vice President's Men.

|
11 Comments:
umm, "pat robertson" is not in the senate, it is pat roberts. but i guess it is true enough either way really.
I think you have hit the nail on the head here - Bush is clearly showing disturbing signs of devious behavior... His public posturing on the sanctity of classified information and his hostility towards leaks are now proving to be forthright displays of hypocrisy and guile...
I think this report will make a difference in Bush's popularity, because a significant minority of people has been giving him the benefit of the doubt on issues such as pre-Iraq War intelligence and allegation of the pre-Iraq War pact he made (as per the Downing St. memos)... But this Libby testimony is a clear showing of how Bush, above and beyond Cheney, has been instrumental in waging a dirty war against his American critics. That is truly a morphing of the worst of Johnson and Nixon.
revised
Kerry on the exit plans
The first paragraph of Kerry's op-ed in the NYT says: WE are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years. The first was against Saddam Hussein and his supposed weapons of mass destruction. The second was against terrorists whom, the administration said, it was better to fight over there than here. Now we find our troops in the middle of an escalating civil war.
The problem is, what we have in Iraq is mutiple stages of the same conflict, not multiple wars. Also, it is pointless to discuss the guerilla war in the ME in terms of generic "terrorists" without considering what factions are actually involved. Maybe it made sense in Vietnam, but I am not sure about this. However, as far as ME is concerned, it certainly cannot be done. As a former officer, Kerry must understand all this.
Also, it is quite clear that this administration has just one plan - to go on with their course regardless of anything. Realistically, any changes can happen only by the end of this decade.
Most importantly, Kerry's statement comes after, not before conservative criticism of the Iraqi course from WFB, Fukuyama and others.
The conclusion is, this move looks more like a part of certain internal game than an outline of any consistent plan on Iraq. For example, it is quite remarkable that immediately after this article, it appears that outing of Plame was authorised by Bush and Cheney themselves.
"...the loyal thing to have done would have been to plead guilty, take three years of jail, and then have Bush pardon Libby just as he was going out of office. Libby is loyal to no one but himself, obviously."
But Juan, Libby would have had to believe that, when Bush said he would pardon him, he was telling the truth. Libby knew Bush well. What reason would he have to believe the man could be trusted "do the right thing"' three years down the road, when Bush's own legacy might be in question?
Or may Scooter didn't think Bush would survive three more years...
' The volunteers' families and friends are not clamoring for an end to the war with the fervor that those of the draftees did in the 1960s and early 1970s. '
Please see
Iraq Veterans Against the War
GI Special
Fight to Survive
A Soldiers' Thoughts
Today in Iraq
Travelling Soldier
Gold Star Families for Peace
Military Families Speak Out
Kevin Benderman Defense Committee
Defend Pablo
I, for one, am thankful that my economic circumstances allowed me to follow other priorities rather than joining the "volunteer army".
Don't level your criticism at the "the Troops" and their families(!). Level it at the liberal Demoplican scum like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton who voted for this war again and again and again and whose only real criticism of it is of the way its being conducted.
I'm rather surprised Cheney hasn't acquired the nickname "Deadeye Dick", after the Kurt Vonnegut novel.
By the way, isn't anyone else outraged that Karl Rove remains in the White House after it was openly revealed that he personally outed an undercover CIA operative for petty political purposes?
The answer, sir, is an unqualified YES. Since when did acts arguably meriting the label of "treason" or even "high treason" become blase "business as usual"?
...treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article Three defines treason as only levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction... In the United States Code, the penalty ranges from "shall suffer death" to "shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
via Wikipedia
trea·son
noun
betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.
[12th century. Via Anglo-Norman treisoun "treacherous handing over, betrayal"]
high trea·son
noun
treason against homeland: treason perpetrated by somebody against his or her own country
via Encarta
Am I missing something here? I must be. Very smart people call me "hysterical" and "naive" for pointing out such as this... Perhaps I should tone down my use of the exclamation mark in correspondence?
La Cosa Nostra
It's interesting that the original "RICO" legislation was adopted in address the influence of racketeers and organised corruption. Since there has been this "tool" to use against the gangsters, the sense that there is anything left of "Ma F(mil)ia" has gone by the wayside. Perhaps there is a "mil" left of the orginal buck. A tenth of a cent don't go too far any more. We have seen all too many instances of the Vallachis and the Gravanos and untold numbers of others who have given up the bosses in order to save their own skins. Not that there should be any support for the daring-do or goings-on of the organised crime families and cronies, it remains typical how the kapos and soldiers are willing to undermine their leaders in such circumstances. It comes down to recognising that the law is somehow supposed to be obeyed and it serves no one no long-term purpose to be allied or aligned with the "Dons" when realising that they'll be among the first to have contracts put out on them, the wayward members. Going public in the press is another way of "dodging the bullet." The only thing left for Libby and a few others will be for the government to initiate witness protection program steps, but with Gonzalez, even that could be even more dangerous.
We might even suggest strongly that the "RICO" acronym be modified to mean "Republican Influenced Corrupt Organisation" inasmuch as we've got an uncountable number of kapos and soldiers (Ohioans, DeLay, Cunningham, et al) who have managed their political and "public" careers in such as way as to manipulate the laws in their own favour, until, of course, it becomes either unfashionable or inconvenient to do so.
As with the mobs, the little squealers have taken centre stage and ratted out the higher ups to save their own hides. And all along the long shore, those in the trenches know all about when a ship is about to sink, for all the rats seem to have scurried away to sail on another day. That they might do their sailing in the gutters and sewers is not out of the realm of possibility but at least they'll be closer to dry land.
If Libby wants to use classified information in his trial, the only thing to do would be send him to one of those military tribunals they set up for the Gitmo prisoners.
The Tip of the Iceberg, Tip of the Spear
By John McCutchen | bio
Shorter Bush: Classification is a tool of my political strategy. -- Josh Marshall
As Josh and Larry have noted, and Greg Sargent (Plame Game) at the American Prospect has explained in detail, Murray Wass's latest disclosure is but the tip of the iceberg.
But what does the iceberg look like? Is it merely part of a post-invasion political cover-up run by the Cabal out of Rove and Libby's Office or is it more?
Recognize this:
These are people that blow up children buying ice cream cones, or that bomb a wedding...
I was confused. Were you referencing this Ice Cream Truck bombing incident by the Israelis?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1695141
That wedding you mentioned, did you mean this one bombed by the Americans?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221658,00.html
Post a Comment
<< Home