Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
QandO has Moved
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Oiling up the Handcuffs?
Posted by: Dale Franks on Wednesday, October 19, 2005

It's called the "perp walk". Speculation abounds early this morning that someone—or someones—in Dick Cheney's office is about to take it.
As the investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's name hurtles to an apparent conclusion, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has zeroed in on the role of Vice President Cheney's office, according to lawyers familiar with the case and government officials. The prosecutor has assembled evidence that suggests Cheney's long-standing tensions with the CIA contributed to the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame.

In grand jury sessions, including with New York Times reporter Judith Miller, Fitzgerald has pressed witnesses on what Cheney may have known about the effort to push back against ex-diplomat and Iraq war critic Joseph C. Wilson IV, including the leak of his wife's position at the CIA, Miller and others said. But Fitzgerald has focused more on the role of Cheney's top aides, including Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, lawyers involved in the case said.

One former CIA official told prosecutors early in the probe about efforts by Cheney's office and his allies at the National Security Council to obtain information about Wilson's trip as long as two months before Plame was unmasked in July 2003, according to a person familiar with the account.

It is not clear whether Fitzgerald plans to charge anyone inside the Bush administration with a crime. But with the case reaching a climax—administration officials are braced for possible indictments as early as this week— it is increasingly clear that Cheney and his aides have been deeply enmeshed in events surrounding the Plame affair from the outset.
I'll say the same thing now that I said during the Clinton Administration. I have one inflexible standard, which is that I don't want my public officials to commit crimes. If the evidence shows that someone in the Bush Administration—I don't really care who—has committed a crime and needs to be tried for it...well, then take them away. Good riddance.

For those of you on the Left who were full of excuses about why Bill Clinton should've gotten a pass on committing perjury, but who are now full of glee at the prospect that someone in the Bush Administration may now go down for striking back at the lying Joe Wilson, I would merely ask that you take note that my position remains unchanged even though the opposing party is now in office.

It's called "principle". You should look into it sometime.

UPDATE [Jon Henke] —

For my part, I was calling for an investigation into the leak back in September of 2003, and my position has long been that "the best plan is to buy plenty of popcorn and wait for the Fitzgerald Report". Like Dale, I'm perfectly happy to throw the book at anybody who intentionally leaked the identity of somebody they knew to be a covert agent—up to and including President Bush.

That being said, the current rumors (and, so far, they are only rumors) involve Cheney resigning. Who would replace him? The answer to that question might bear a very strong resemblance to the Republican candidate for President in '08.

  • Condoleezza Rice: I tend to doubt it. Her protestations aside, her career interests seem too narrow and (generally) academic to transition easily to the Presidency.

  • John McCain: Certainly a credibility booster for the Bush administration's reputation with the center. Not so much with the already dissatisfied portion of the Right.

  • Rudy Giuliani: Hmm...
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
If the CIA was being pressed to provide "information about Wilson’s trip as long as two months before Plame was unmasked in July 2003," why didn’t the CIA move more aggressively to muffle Wilson? They had two months to prepare a game plan in the event Wilson’s taking on the White House drew attention to his wife and it was naive on their part to think it wouldn’t. Instead, they sat back and then proceeded to confirm her identity to Novak.
 
Written By: katy
URL: http://
I’ll say the same thing now that I said during the Clinton Administration. I have one inflexible standard, which is that I don’t want my public officials to commit crimes. If the evidence shows that someone in the Bush Administration—I don’t really care who—has committed a crime and needs to be tried for it...well, then take them away. Good riddance.

What would constitute sufficient "evidence" in your opinion? Would a Ronnie-Earle style indictment be sufficient for you? What if it’s an indictment on Scooter Libby for some borderline maybe-maybe not perjury issue?

In the meantime, again, it’s a crying shame that we’re talking about this and not the outcome of Joe Wilson’s treason trial. Next time something like this happens, instead of trying to push back, they should just deliver a bullet and be done with it.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
There are lots of possible outcomes. Based on what’s publicly known, I think the most likely one is that, since it’s not clear that a crime was committed, there won’t be any indictments.

If there are indictments, I hope it’s because the prosecutors have much clearer evidence of somebody commiting a crime than we’ve seen so far. One Delay-style political prosecution per year is already way too high a rate.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Re: Jon’s update, there’s no way it’d be any of them. Guliani doesn’t want it, Bush doesn’t like McCain, and Condi is most valuable right where she is now. I guarantee you Bush would just pick somebody close to him with little or no credentials for it. It’s his pattern, after all.
 
Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://conjecturesandrefutations.net/weblog/
::::getting out QandO Labelmaker (tm):::::

yeah yeah I know the inevitable comparasons to BJ Clinton and Cheney are forthcoming.

yeah yeah...a lie is a lie.

How many people were put into physical harm when BJ lied? Um, zero.

How many operatives and spies were potentially exposed to harm as a result of this leak and lie to cover the leak? I’d venture more than zero.

Treason? Wilson? Huh? Close, but sorry no brass ring..it does start with a "T", though.

Besides, you can’t blame the "Left" for their tut tut tactic. After all, the "Right" showed them where the high road was during BJ’s tribulations.

The "Right" showed us the right way to publicly call for impeachment and prison for scandalous liars. Right, "Right"?

Since the "Right" is always right, and the "Left" is always wrong, why slam the "Left" for takeing a page out of the "Rights’" book of hate and division, when dealing with this issue of crooks and liars in high office?

No one in their "right" minds can have it both ways. Um, except for religion/Roberts/Meiers.

Ok, I have put away my Labelmaker (tm) and await retort. Should be interesting, yet rife with name calling and generally dismissive. (grins)
 
Written By: Rick D.
URL: http://
Re: Jon’s update, there’s no way it’d be any of them. Guliani doesn’t want it, Bush doesn’t like McCain, and Condi is most valuable right where she is now. I guarantee you Bush would just pick somebody close to him with little or no credentials for it. It’s his pattern, after all.

On this particular topic, I don’t think anyone wanting to run for Pres in 08 would want it. Too easy to be tarred as part of the "culture of corruption" that will be the theme in the next election
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
How many operatives and spies were potentially exposed to harm as a result of this leak and lie to cover the leak? I’d venture more than zero

Explain how "operatives and spies" were put at risk regarding this? V. Plame did a Vanity Fair photo shoot after this overblown incident. V. Plame being an agent was an open secret among Washington and the Press Corps. Sounds risky to me...

As for the rest of your posting, it’s generally "nyah nyah nyah" style taunting. Not worthy of a response (is that dismissive enough to fulfill the criteria you were looking for? Sorry to leave out the name calling though. Maybe next time.)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
What Rick was saying can be summed up like this: "A crime is only a crime if the perpetrator’s ideology differs from yours." Also, per shark, "nyah nyah nyah" is a good description. And he wonders why names are flung?
 
Written By: CyanCyde
URL: http://
Actually, I’ve changed my mind on one possibility. Condi might be willing to do it, she’s close to Bush, and she’s not really all that valuable at State. Bob Zoellick would make a better SecState anyway. Plus she’s already strongly associated with this administration, so she has nothing to lose by taking it if it’s offered.
 
Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://conjecturesandrefutations.net
Explain how "operatives and spies" were put at risk regarding this? V. Plame did a Vanity Fair photo shoot after this overblown incident. V. Plame being an agent was an open secret among Washington and the Press Corps. Sounds risky to me...




Google This:

Brewster-Jennings & Associates

every covert operative tied to that firm, when it was outed as a CIA front, was put in jepordy. How many? Hm, classified.

oh, and the name calling began the day the E.I.B Network started its frist day, not with today’s blog, my blameshifting friends.

Again, if you read nyah nyah in my post...guess which idealogy I learned that from? (which was the point of the post, heh)

Or is that "nyah nyah I am ’right’ and you are not"?

heh. I hope we agree neither the right or the left is the answer, but a sane blend of the two.
 
Written By: Rick D.
URL: http://
heh. I hope we agree neither the right or the left is the answer, but a sane blend of the two

After trying to decipher your posts, I’m not sure sane is a word you’re familiar with (oooh, there’s some EIB-style name calling!)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Shark:

In the meantime, again, it’s a crying shame that we’re talking about this and not the outcome of Joe Wilson’s treason trial.
Mkay, I’ll bite: what’d he do?

 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
BTW: Rick actually has a point here IMO despite his tone. The two are nowhere near the same thing.
 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
THe NYT recently exposed a secret CIA air transport company.

I guess they need to be prosecuted as well.

BTW, Clinton was not about the BJ but about LYING UNDER OATH.

But I guess LYING is okay now, as long as no one is physically injured.

Are you teaching your kids this new morality?

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Mkay, I’ll bite: what’d he do?

Outside of lying about the outcome of his trip in a deliberate effort to thwart the initiatives of the POTUS (and possibly secure some sort of appointment from his opponent should he emerge victorious) not much I guess...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
BTW, Clinton was not about the BJ but about LYING UNDER OATH.
But I guess LYING is okay now, as long as no one is physically injured.
Are you teaching your kids this new morality?
Obviously not, but you miss the point. What Clinton lied about was none of our business anyway, who the president is screwing isn’t relevant to his job. There are priorities.
Outside of lying about the outcome of his trip in a deliberate effort to thwart the initiatives of the POTUS (and possibly secure some sort of appointment from his opponent should he emerge victorious) not much I guess...
What’d he lie about? Wasn’t it proven the uranium purchase attempt didn’t happen?

 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
Obviously not, but you miss the point.
Ah, but Clinton lied under oath, didn’t he? Last time I checked, perjury is still a crime.
 
Written By: CyanCyde
URL: http://
Ah, but Clinton lied under oath, didn’t he? Last time I checked, perjury is still a crime.
Lying about sex is about as much of a crime as smoking weed is. Neither has reason to be illegal.

See, people that think such a piddling offense is worth going after tend to be one of two things: 1) nitpickey moralists concerned more with "sending a message" than keeping the gears running properly or 2) partisans who just want to take down someone not on their "team". Partisan identification is meaningless, the D or R next to their names might as well be "group of imbeciles #1" & "group of imbeciles #2" far as I’m concerned.




 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
"Lying about sex is about as much of a crime as smoking weed is. Neither has reason to be illegal"

How about lying about rape? Would that be all right, since it is only about sex?
How about sexual harassment? He wasn’t just lying in answer to irrelevant questions about his sex life. He was lying under oath(perjury) in a lawuit brought by Paula Jones, who famously accused him of sexual harassment. Does her right to legal redress lose to Wee Willy’s desire to avoid embarrassment? Why do other defendants in such cases have to answer these questions, but not him?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
How about lying about rape?
Rape violates the rights of another person. Answering the question of if you got a blowjob from a consenting adult with "no" when the answer is yes doesn’t.
How about sexual harassment? He wasn’t just lying in answer to irrelevant questions about his sex life. He was lying under oath(perjury) in a lawuit brought by Paula Jones, who famously accused him of sexual harassment. Does her right to legal redress lose to Wee Willy’s desire to avoid embarrassment?
Her right to legal redress ends where her involvement in the matter ends. Last I heard, Monica did her part willingly, so why throw that into the case?



Tell you what: if a day comes when who the president gets oral sex from has an effect on national security and/or individual rights, I will care about it, ok? Until then, it’s a complete waste of time. I’m quite sure that if an anonymous survey were done, a quite large %age of politicians w/ a degree of power would be revealed to have screwed someone not their spouse.

 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
BTW: I’m not a fan of Clinton either, I just don’t get why of all the things to point at it’s THAT that comes up.
 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
Her right to redress, like that of all sexual harassment plaintiffs, includes the right to prove a pattern of behavior of to support her case. This is standard, not something dreamed up to harass or embarass Bill Clinton. You may no like it, but it is the law. Anyway, the subject of the questions is irrelevant. He was under oath, he had a legal obligation to answer the questions truthfully, and he lied. That is perjury. Other people have gone to jail for doing what he did, why should he get special treatment?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider