home

Time For Cheney to Come Clean

By TChris, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 08:43:25 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

David Corn asks: “Did Cheney know Plame was undercover?” Noting that the Libby indictment doesn’t answer the question, Corn probes Cheney’s role in the scandal:

As the Post piece notes, on July 12, 2003--six days after Wilson published his op-ed--Libby apparently discussed with Cheney what he should say to reporters, particularly Matt Cooper, about the Wilson imbroglio. The indictment does not disclose what Cheney said to Libby at this point. But the next day, Libby confirmed for Cooper that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Would Libby have done so had Cheney told him to be careful not to identify a DO [Operations Directorate] officer when discussing the Wilson affair with reporters? Perhaps so. But it's not unreasonable to wonder if Libby was--inadvertently or knowingly--spreading classified information about an undercover officer with the tacit or explicit consent of his boss.

Corn joins others in demanding that Cheney give a full accounting of the role he played in the outing of Valerie Plame. More on Cheney's role here and here.

< Subway Search Trial Underway | Turley: Alito Would Be Court's Most Conservative Justice >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Time For Cheney to Come Clean | 22 comments (22 topical)
    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    While it is "time for Cheney to Come Clean" you cannot possibly believe that Cheney did not know that Plame was in DO and by definition covert. He may be mean but he is not dumb. Any 'campaign' to get back at someone, or whatever the reason for blowing Plames cover, would ask at the obvious questions. A grade school child would ask whether she was covert or not. Why would they even bother to mention her if they knew revealing her identity as CIA would not cause damage.

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    Charley, So even though Fitzgerald SAID her cover was blown it still isn't true? Okay, keep tilting at windmills.

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    char-lie- It is obvious that you are unable to do anything other than repeat Limbaugh et.al. I have enough experience with your portable wingnut echo chamber to understand that you could not possibly understand the plain english in either Fitzgerald's press conference or his Indictment. You must have the same problem managing your meds. Get a nurse it may help.

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#4)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    A former federal prosecutor weighs in Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#5)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    sorry, that would be here.

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#6)
    by profmarcus on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    i am deeply resentful of the "change-the-subject" strategy once again being so successfully employed by george and karl to keep us from one of the principal issues of the bush administration - the effort to deliberately mislead the media and the american people into an illegal war in iraq... cheney clearly had a key role in that and was more than heavily invested in keeping the truth of how we came to be in that war under wraps... thanks for keeping your focus...

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    Did Cheney Know? And next thing you are going to tell me, that wiggly tin is really called corragated iron.

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    E & P has an article up The Real Valerie Plame. It is worth a read as it has some of the human interest aspects of Plame's life. E&P

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    Char-Lie-Your portable echo chamber is once again showing how dim you actually are.
    If no less a conservative than Bob Woodward gets that, why can't you?
    As inchoherent your question is I will take a stab at guesing what you are asking. Woodward is a partisan hack supporting Libby who most likely has been one of his sources for some time. Here is something that will test your ability to read. Good luck, but I am not expecting much as your comprehension has proven to be quite low. But you must be good at listening to Larry King:
    They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger of any kind and there was just some embarrassment.
    Woodward just made that up. From Saturday's WaPo Headline:
    CIA Yet to Assess Harm From Plame's Exposure
    Oops!! so much for your man in DC.

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    Char-Lie-You are unable to read. Big surprise. WaPo must be one of those commie papers in your book. Ha Ha Ha Ha. Ignoramus-1. (Law) We are ignorant; we ignore 2. (pl. Ignoramuses.) A stupid, ignorant person; a vain pretender to knowledge; a dunce. Looks like you are choosing to remain an ignoramus. Must be comforting.

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    According to the indictment, several senior administrators discussed Plame's identity and her position in the CIA. Though these administrators have a security clearance, it has not been demonstrated that they all had an operational need to know this information. If Libby didn't have an operational need to know about Plame's identity, Cheney violated the terms of his security clearance by passing that information on to him. Was there an operational need for Libby to know Plame's position within the CIA?

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#12)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    Charley, Did you read my link? Educate yourself, and get back to me

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    Char-Lie-Reading the links kindly provided for you in order to continue a dialogue would be the "common sense' operation here...that is, if you had an interest in anything other than being a disruptive troll. By following up on links you may find out what everyone else here already knows, be able to add and not detract from the discussion, and end your reign as TL's #1 ignoramus. Not so convenient for your wingnut arguments but less embarrassing for you, to be sure.

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#14)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    Charley, How do you know what the CIA has, or has not done? You obviousely have not read the entire article. When you do, let me know

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#15)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    Charley, How sad. I provided you an analysis, written by a long time federal prosecutor, regarding why charges are brought in a certain way. Did you not understand it?

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:35 PM EST
    Charley has EIGHT posts in this one thread in one day. How sad that this CHATTERER isn't curtailed by the fine people at TL. Skipping over his regular regurgitation of talking points he got in his email is tiresome enough. But when he overposts like this, he is inherently trying to divert the discussion into nothingness (aka, trolling). As for time for Cheney to "come clean"... there is so much blood and grease in his bathwater that the only way he becomes cleaner is to stop breathing-- I mean, bathing. Squeaky is at least not greasy and bloody, like charley.

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:36 PM EST
    et al - The defintion of a covert agent has more than one qualification. Given that the SP knew those definitions, and knew Mrs. Wilson's position in regards to them, the fact that he did not indict says that she was not a covert agent. Now, can he do so later? Yes. Will he? Why wait? Get over it guys. Willie - Cute, but wrong. Squeaky - Do some research and you will discover that Mrs. Wilson was brought back to the US in the fallout from the Aldrich Ames case. That pretty well shot her covert career and comprimised all her sources/agents/etc., etc. I love your comment:
    Woodward is a partisan hack supporting Libby who most likely has been one of his sources for some time.
    It is doubtful Woodward would ever read your comment, but if he did I can just see him shaking his head and saying..."How quickly they forget."

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:37 PM EST
    Posted by Jim: "et al - The defintion of a covert agent has more than one qualification." Any one of which is binding. "the fact that he did not indict says that she was not a covert agent." The fact that Fitzgerald just nailed Libby on crimes against the Grand Jury has NOTHING to do with the CIA FINDING THAT SHE WAS COVERT. Do you think the CIA can determine who's covert or not? Since you like QEDs, why don't you wrap that heavy wool coat of a brain of yours around the FACT that the CIA referred the case to the Justice Dept. BECAUSE it violated the law, BECAUSE she was covert. Or else they wouldn't have. QED. That's Latin for Quit Evading De-issue.

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:37 PM EST
    PIL writes:
    Do you think the CIA can determine who's covert or not?
    The CIA requested an investigation of the outing of Mrs. Wilson. The result of that investigation has not resulted in indictments. And your question was?

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:37 PM EST
    The result of that investigation has not resulted in indictments...
    The indictment against Cheney’s Chief of Staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, clearly states that Cheney and Libby discussed Plame’s undercover CIA status and the fact that her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, traveled to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq tried to acquire yellowcake uranium from the African country in early June of 2003. Yet the following month, Cheney and then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer asserted that the vice president was unaware of Wilson’s Niger trip, who the ambassador was, or a classified report Wilson wrote about his findings prior to the ambassador’s July 6, 2003 op-ed in the New York Times. We now know, courtesy of the 22-page Libby indictment, that Cheney wasn’t being truthful. Cheney did see the report; he knew full well who Wilson was. MORE...
    Yes, yes, we know, whizzy, that the only indictment so far was for obstructing the investigation, not for the outing itself... yet. The air must be pretty thin out there in la la land.

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:37 PM EST
    Jimmy-poo, a.k.a. Pooped in my PJs wrote:
    The CIA requested an investigation of the outing of Mrs. Wilson. The result of that investigation has not resulted in indictments.
    NOT YET. BUT SOON JIMMY-POO, SOON. BAH-WAH-HAHAHA!!!

    Re: Time For Cheney to Come Clean (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:38 PM EST
    Posted by Jim: "The CIA requested an investigation of the outing of Mrs. Wilson." She can't be 'outed' unless she was covert. You therefore disprove your own contention. "The result of that investigation has not resulted in indictments." A result of that Grand Jury was Libby lied to it and was indicted. The Grand Jury took hundreds of hours of testimony, and THAT is the true result of the investigation to date. Those are facts in evidence, and all further investigations and indictments will flow from that collection of FACTUALLY-STATED EVIDENCE. Not hearsay in newspapers. FACTS in a lawful Grand Jury can be referenced by ANY other court in the world as bona fide evidence. Your bully boys are sweating bullets. "And your question was?" When will you read the Bible, Jim? "Woe unto you who are rich, for you have received your consolation." -- Jesus, Sermon on the Mount

    Time For Cheney to Come Clean | 22 comments (22 topical)