You are herecontent / FRANK RICH: It's Bush-Cheney, Not Rove-Libby!!!!

FRANK RICH: It's Bush-Cheney, Not Rove-Libby!!!!


FRANK RICH: It's Bush-Cheney, Not Rove-Libby!!!!
by Maccabee [Subscribe]
Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 05:56:49 PM PDT
Rich puts the blame where no one else has so far. Just read on. Link and more after the jump...

Asked repeatedly about Mr. Rove's serial appearances before a Washington grand jury, the jittery Mr. Bush, for once bereft of a script, improvised a passable impersonation of Norman Bates being quizzed by the detective in "Psycho." Like Norman and Ms. Stewart, he stonewalled.

That stonewall may start to crumble in a Washington courtroom this week or next. In a sense it already has. Now, as always, what matters most in this case is not whether Mr. Rove and Lewis Libby engaged in a petty conspiracy to seek revenge on a whistle-blower, Joseph Wilson, by unmasking his wife, Valerie, a covert C.I.A. officer. What makes Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation compelling, whatever its outcome, is its illumination of a conspiracy that was not at all petty: the one that took us on false premises into a reckless and wasteful war in Iraq. That conspiracy was instigated by Mr. Rove's boss, George W. Bush, and Mr. Libby's boss, Dick Cheney.

Maccabee's diary :: ::
But the issue is not just who leaked Valerie Plame's identity- rather- central core of the argument to go to war, says Rich, is the White House Iraq Group's mission to sell the war no matter what.

That stonewall may start to crumble in a Washington courtroom this week or next. In a sense it already has. Now, as always, what matters most in this case is not whether Mr. Rove and Lewis Libby engaged in a petty conspiracy to seek revenge on a whistle-blower, Joseph Wilson, by unmasking his wife, Valerie, a covert C.I.A. officer. What makes Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation compelling, whatever its outcome, is its illumination of a conspiracy that was not at all petty: the one that took us on false premises into a reckless and wasteful war in Iraq. That conspiracy was instigated by Mr. Rove's boss, George W. Bush, and Mr. Libby's boss, Dick Cheney.

Mr. Wilson and his wife were trashed to protect that larger plot. Because the personnel in both stories overlap, the bits and pieces we've learned about the leak inquiry over the past two years have gradually helped fill in the über-narrative about the war. Last week was no exception. Deep in a Wall Street Journal account of Judy Miller's grand jury appearance was this crucial sentence: "Lawyers familiar with the investigation believe that at least part of the outcome likely hangs on the inner workings of what has been dubbed the White House Iraq Group."

--snip--

Very little has been written about the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG. Its inception in August 2002, seven months before the invasion of Iraq, was never announced. Only much later would a newspaper article or two mention it in passing, reporting that it had been set up by Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff. Its eight members included Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, Condoleezza Rice and the spinmeisters Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin. Its mission: to market a war in Iraq.

Of course, the official Bush history would have us believe that in August 2002 no decision had yet been made on that war. Dates bracketing the formation of WHIG tell us otherwise. On July 23, 2002 - a week or two before WHIG first convened in earnest - a British official told his peers, as recorded in the now famous Downing Street memo, that the Bush administration was ensuring that "the intelligence and facts" about Iraq's W.M.D.'s "were being fixed around the policy" of going to war. And on Sept. 6, 2002 - just a few weeks after WHIG first convened - Mr. Card alluded to his group's existence by telling Elisabeth Bumiller of The New York Times that there was a plan afoot to sell a war against Saddam Hussein: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

The official introduction of that product began just two days later. On the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 8, Ms. Rice warned that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," and Mr. Cheney, who had already started the nuclear doomsday drumbeat in three August speeches, described Saddam as "actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons." The vice president cited as evidence a front-page article, later debunked, about supposedly nefarious aluminum tubes co-written by Judy Miller in that morning's Times. The national security journalist James Bamford, in "A Pretext for War," writes that the article was all too perfectly timed to facilitate "exactly the sort of propaganda coup that the White House Iraq Group had been set up to stage-manage."

Essentially the WHIG succeeded. They sold the war. In this scenario, the show was over. Or rather, about to begin.

The Bush-Cheney product rolled out by Card, Rove, Libby & Company had been bought by Congress, the press and the public. The intelligence and facts had been successfully fixed to sell the war, and any memory of Mr. Bush's errant 16 words melted away in Shock and Awe. When, months later, a national security official, Stephen Hadley, took "responsibility" for allowing the president to address the nation about mythical uranium, no one knew that Mr. Hadley, too, had been a member of WHIG.

It was not until the war was supposedly over - with "Mission Accomplished," in May 2003 - that Mr. Wilson started to add his voice to those who were disputing the administration's uranium hype. Members of WHIG had a compelling motive to shut him down. In contrast to other skeptics, like Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency (this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner), Mr. Wilson was an American diplomat; he had reported his findings in Niger to our own government. He was a dagger aimed at the heart of WHIG and its disinformation campaign. Exactly who tried to silence him and how is what Mr. Fitzgerald presumably will tell us.

It's long been my hunch that the WHIG-ites were at their most brazen (and, in legal terms, reckless) during the many months that preceded the appointment of Mr. Fitzgerald as special counsel. When Mr. Rove was asked on camera by ABC News in September 2003 if he had any knowledge of the Valerie Wilson leak and said no, it was only hours before the Justice Department would open its first leak investigation. When Scott McClellan later declared that he had been personally assured by Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby that they were "not involved" with the leak, the case was still in the safe hands of the attorney general then, John Ashcroft, himself a three-time Rove client in past political campaigns. Though Mr. Rove may be known as "Bush's brain," he wasn't smart enough to anticipate that Justice Department career employees would eventually pressure Mr. Ashcroft to recuse himself because of this conflict of interest, clearing the way for an outside prosecutor as independent as Mr. Fitzgerald.

THIS modus operandi was foolproof, shielding the president as well as Mr. Rove from culpability, as long as it was about winning an election. The attack on Mr. Wilson, by contrast, has left them and the Cheney-Libby tag team vulnerable because it's about something far bigger: protecting the lies that took the country into what the Reagan administration National Security Agency director, Lt. Gen. William Odom, recently called "the greatest strategic disaster in United States history."

Whether or not Mr. Fitzgerald uncovers an indictable crime, there is once again a victim, but that victim is not Mr. or Mrs. Wilson; it's the nation. It is surely a joke of history that even as the White House sells this weekend's constitutional referendum as yet another "victory" for democracy in Iraq, we still don't know the whole story of how our own democracy was hijacked on the way to war.

The whole truth

LINK TO ORIGINAL

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

ITS ABOUT TIME SOMEONE TOLD THE TRUTH.
FRANK RICH DONE WHAT NO OTHER REPORTER HAD THE GUTS TO DO.
BUSH& CHENEY MAY NOT GET INDICTED,BUT I BELIEVE WHAT FRANK IS SAYING
AFTER ALL PAUL O'NEIL SAID IN HIS BOOK THE PRICE OF LOYALTY THAT IRAQ WAS ON THE TABLE 12 DAYS AFTER BUSH BECAME PRESIDENT. I HOPE THE SOBS GET THE CREDIT THAT IS DUE THEM.THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE LIVES THAT HAVE BEEN LOST IN THIS UNNESSARY WAR.

As couragous as reporting the bigger issue is here, the fact that Iraq was on the table 12 days after Bush's first election does miss the origination of the overall motivation. All one needs to do is go to the following link:

www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Scroll down to the bottom of the page to see the founding members of this extreme organization (Project for a New American Century), whose mission was to dethrone Saddam, and install democracy in the middle east. The list is a virtual who's who of the Bush administration, and those in the greatest positions at the weathiest neocon orgs in America. This plan didn't come to these people in the year 2000, it came to Bill Krystol and Dick Cheney early in the 90's, and has all the appearances of a total infiltration of the executive branch today.

As couragous as reporting the bigger issue is here, the fact that Iraq was on the table 12 days after Bush's first election does miss the origination of the overall motivation. All one needs to do is go to the following link:

www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Scroll down to the bottom of the page to see the founding members of this extreme organization (Project for a New American Century), whose mission was to dethrone Saddam, and install democracy in the middle east. The list is a virtual who's who of the Bush administration, and those in the greatest positions at the weathiest neocon orgs in America. This plan didn't come to these people in the year 2000, it came to Bill Krystol and Dick Cheney early in the 90's, and has all the appearances of a total infiltration of the executive branch today.

In all honesty, Bush has been no more honest with Congress than he has been with the American people, whom he as an "elected" official is sworn to represent.

And Congress never declared by vote the illegal occupation of Iraq as war, but rather authorized an extended military engagement. This based on the trust in the President and signed by the President as Iraq Resolution H.J. Res.114 on Oct.16, 2002, when the President stated "With this resolution, Congress has now authorized the use of force. I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary. Yet, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is necessary, by whatever means that requires. Either the Iraqi regime will give up its weapons of mass destruction, or, for the sake of peace, the United States will lead a global coalition to disarm that regime. If any doubt our nation's resolve, our determination, they would be unwise to test it."

The President, who does not have the right to declare war, has sent our troops into harms way under false pretenses(WMDs), and his White House(office) has outed a highly trained and extremely dedicated CIA op/analyst(Valerie Plame Wilson) from the unit known as "Winpac", weapons intelligence, nonproliferation and arms control, claiming it was political self defense and any slips of the tongue were made unconsciously not realizing that she was still active even though it was less than a week since they all, and some others who did not have security clearance, read a memo, on AF1 traveling to Niger of all places, in which the tag S/NF(Secret/No Foreigners) clearly depicted the seriousness of the agents cover.

All this in the face of criticism regarding a bogus intelligence reference in the Presidents "State of the Union address" in 2003 made by a certain retired US diplomat(Ambassador Joseph Wilson), hired by the CIA at the request of the VP, also in the same White House(office) to verify the status of the intell, which was confirmed by this source as bogus as it was already classified, months prior to the "address".

The significance of the aggressive accusations and exaggeration of intelligence leading up to the US lead military invasion becomes particularly clear with the release of Top Secret Memos from British Intelligence, now known as "The Downing Street Memos", which list times and dates of meetings between a certain Richard Dearlove(British Secret Intelligence Service) and Condoleezza Rice(then Secretary of Defense,US) discussing the prelude to regime change in Iraq and the British concern over International Law and the illegality of such a pretense(regime change) and suggesting another tact, specifically the threat of proliferation via Weapons of Mass Destruction in such regime.

Given the fact the US weapons inspectors found no indication that any such weapons programs outside the legal limits of the sanctioned country(Iraq) had been located and the spin through the media, particularly one insider, Miller, working for the most prestigious newspaper in the US(NYTimes), one does not have to think too hard to arrive at the question of who may have craftily taken advantage of such a zealous reporters naiveté through the clandestine seduction by "inside information" exciting the intrigue through false empowerment and creating an indirect and collaborating source to further the White House(office) agenda?

Why was this reporter with no military background given such high honors to traipse around the targeted prewar area, with a military entourage as an escort, sometimes even threatening the squad leaders with phone calls to top US brass, and who is responsible for her clearance?

To ask why such a reporter would go to jail in contempt to protect her source(s) for a story she never wrote is as farcical as the concept of journalistic freedoms in the face of Federal Investigations. That after eighty some odd days(85) she gets the nod that it is now believed they have all those bases covered and that the special prosecuting attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, is probably barking up the wrong tree, so go ahead and hang your source out to dry, is another masterful stroke of limited genius spun once again by the (office) which knows too well that blatantly hiding something in plain view will misdirect the attention of the public from the real issues.

Will it misdirect Patrick Fitzgerald? Will he follow the path they send him down and let him come back with a few fish on a string and say What a good boy am I? Or will he take to the higher ground of Constitutional Law which empowers the President, and steer clear of Martial Law which, separate from the public domain, might deem this a threat(no joke) to national security? And will this separation prevail if the White House council to the residing President, Harriet Miers, gets the appointment as Supreme Court justice?

For this question we may ask why Rice endorses the current White House council and a former deputy chief of staff on international legal issues, specifically the Presidents wartime powers?

Would this highly rated power attorney make a mockery out of any Congressional investigation, designed by our Constitutional forefathers, to keep a rouge administration in check? Will such an investigation likely take place? Apparently someone is awfully nervous and taking the appropriate steps to further stonewall justice and the American People, who have a God given right to know.

Who gave Miller the military escort and who do they answer to?
Who is Miller really "protecting"?
Is Rice in complicity with Dearlove?
Is there any real separation in this White House(office)?
How can anyone still think this is just about Valerie?
Is the residing office above National Security?
Is gross misuse of power a treasonable offence?
Is treason still justification for hanging in time of war?
Can a Supreme court ruling gag and conceal the truth from the public and protect the tyrannical obstruction of justice?
Is this not extremely serious?
Have not scores of thousands of innocent people died?
Does violence breed trust in humanity?
Is the object of this coup d'e-tat simply to create a self fulfilling prophecy?
Is this format setting the stage for a much larger agenda?
Can this be a lesson unto us all?
Will history repeat itself?
Will there be consequences of devastation?
Will Fitzgerald act in time to thwart the appointment of Miers?
Will Justice be Served?

If any of these questions ring any bells for you then please pass this on.

As couragous as reporting the bigger issue is here, the fact that Iraq was on the table 12 days after Bush's first election does miss the origination of the overall motivation. All one needs to do is go to the following link:

www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Scroll down to the bottom of the page to see the founding members of this extreme organization (Project for a New American Century), whose mission was to dethrone Saddam, and install democracy in the middle east. The list is a virtual who's who of the Bush administration, and those in the greatest positions at the weathiest neocon orgs in America. This plan didn't come to these people in the year 2000, it came to Bill Krystol and Dick Cheney early in the 90's, and has all the appearances of a total infiltration of the executive branch today.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.