The perjury and obstruction of justice trial of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, is a case of White House spin turned bad.
The trial is a culmination of events, which began in February 2002, when Joseph Wilson was sent, by the CIA, on a fact-finding mission to see if Iraq had sought uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger, in West Africa. He found no evidence to this effect. However, President Bush ignored this finding and stated just the opposite in his January 2003 State of the Union Address. Bush’s “smoking gun”, in his Address, was a report from Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee that scientist Dr. David Kelly, the Minister of Defense, admitted to “sexing up” at the behest of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office. The report was found to be seriously flawed using fragmentary intelligence. Dr. Kelly later committed suicide after this was disclosed. (Butler Report, July 2004).
Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, made from uranium supposedly sought from Niger, were the basis for invading Iraq. Tenuous at best, but the American public bought into it, since there was no information to refute this claim.
Until July 2003, that is, when Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times entitled, “What I Didn’t Find In Africa.” The first two sentences were damning. He wrote: “Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq? Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.” (New York Times, July 6, 2003)
Suddenly the Bush administration was being publicly questioned about their motives for war. It put the White House in turmoil. Vice President Dick Cheney was apparently furious. And so, on July 7, 2003, the spin began. Publicly they were dismissing it, but internally, they were already plotting revenge. According to testimony by Catherine J. Martin, the vice president’s top press aide at the time, Cheney became obsessed with Wilson’s article. While meeting with Cheney and Libby on July 7, to plot strategies to discredit Wilson, Martin suggested leaking information to selected journalists that would undercut Wilson’s credibility. She also testified that she told both Cheney and Libby “sometime”, possibly earlier in the year about Valerie Plame, Wilson’s wife, working for the CIA.
The task of “leaking” classified information (feeding would be a better word) to selected press fell to Libby, and apparently Karl Rove got in on the act too. Libby testified that Cheney “dictated to me what he wanted me to say to the press, including a word –for- word quote to give Time magazine and “background material he wanted me to use”.
The boys got busy in a hurry. On that same day, July 7, Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary, testified that he met Libby for lunch and that Libby told him about Ms. Wilson working for the CIA, and that it was “hush, hush”.
Apparently not too “hush, hush”, since Matthew Cooper, former reporter for Time Magazine, testified that Karl Rove, Bush’s aide, told him on July 11 about Ms. Wilson, and that he talked to Libby about her on July 12. It was also on this date that Libby spoke with Judith Miller, former reporter for the New York Times, about Ms. Wilson.
On July 14 columnist Robert Novak wrote: “ Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate” (‘Mission to Niger’ by Robert Novak, July 14, 2003). Saying that Ms. Wilson had arranged for her husband to take the trip to Niger, was a red herring and later proved to be false.
Suddenly the leak boiled over into illegal territory and Cheney’s little tit for tat had become dangerous. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent.
“According to some inside the intel arena,” wrote Steven C. Clemons of ‘The Washington Note’, “Valerie Wilson’s work had a lot to do with monitoring Iran’s nuclear weapons material into Iran. And the sources allege that when Mrs. Wilson’s cover was blown, the Administration’s ability to track Iran’s nuclear ambitions was damaged as well. If this account of Plame-Wilson’s activities is true, those who exposed Valerie Plame Wilson helped undermine American national security in much more major ways that haven’t yet been disclosed.” (Steven C. Clemons, The Washington Note, April 25, 2006)
Not only had Plame and any operatives under her been placed in harms way by the disclosure, our national security had also been jeopardized. The White House tried to dismiss the issue by saying it was “a tempest in a teapot”, however, they began flooding the press with denials about anyone in the administration being involved. The spin had now become a cover-up.
In his grand jury testimony, Libby, has blamed everyone he talked to for the leak, saying he heard it from reporters, specifically Tim Russert. However, all 11 witnesses called by the prosecution have refuted Libby’s story. Now it appears that Cheney will be called to testify for the defense. He will be totally exposed, without the buffer zone of his office and the insulation of his minions. He will not be in control of the situation, and he will certainly not be able to bully Patrick Fitzgerald under cross-examination.
Whether “Scooter” Libby is found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice is of very little consequence. He is just a pawn. But the trial has exposed the sheer audacity of this administration to disregard the truth if it does not suit their purposes, and to try to discredit anyone who disagrees with them, and uncover the real issue, that the Bush administration fabricated intelligence information as a rationale for war.
Cheri Cabot, Politics Correspondent
Cheri’s column, “Personal About Politics”, published every Tuesday, will reflect on how the life of a 57 year-old, middle class woman is affected by politics, policy and the current state of the nation - a look at the personal aspects of politics. The articles will be posted to Politics.gather.com as part of Gather Essentials.
Cheri is a single teacher and writer, living in Southern California. She has two grown children, one in Iowa and one at Columbia University, and is the proud grandmother of two. Cheri is also a purveyor of fine coffee, warm chatter and dry wit.
You can find all of Cheri’s columns on Personal About Politics at ccabot.gather.com. Keep up with Cheri’s other postings and Gather activity by joining her Gather network at ccabot.gather.com, and select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.
You’ll find Cheri and other Politics Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other Politics experts at Politics.gather.com


Comments: 50
All the hypothesis that you leftists put forth as fact are very entertaining but have no factual support. Then again, facts do not matter to liberals. With you folk the fact that Bill Clinton lied did not matter or even exist in your small minds. To you he simply didn't tell the truth about sex. What he lied about wasn't the issue. Did he lie and did he do so while under oath was the issue.
Until you people can deal with facts, you should continue watching Entertainment Tonight and concern yourselves with what body parts Britney Spears shaves because those are the only kind of facts that matter in your small views of the world.
Well, the way I See it, George Jr, Dick, Candy, Donny, and Colin are all guilty of the same thing... lying to congress, to the American people and to the entire world.
To tell you the truth, I really don't give a rats ass if Bill lied about getting a BJ in the oval office... we didn't end up going to war over it... and he got what he deserved.
I say, let the past be the past (but never forget it), let's live in the present, and look to the future.
So Anthony, tell me what you think of the NRA and survivalist movement? I always enjoy hearing different points of view.
Sean and Eddie, as always....a pleasure.
You did notice, of course, that once Anthony spouted off, he left and never responded to any of our rebutals. Typical.
I have to chuckle when I see the really sad inability of neocons to take direct responsibility for or even to condemn the actions of those they support even when they lie and cover up, based on the fact that Mr. Clinton lied about a blowjob. There are even some of that crowd who pretend they don't understand that perjury is actually lying about something material to a case before the court, rather than simply lying under oath. If you state that you're 41 not 45 under oath, and your age has nothing to do with the matter, you are not guilty of perjury; you are simply guilty of misplaced vanity. Mr. Clinton's lie was immaterial in that it wasn't relevant. Should he have told the truth? Of course he should have; but his lie didn't endanger the country or cost human lives.
It amazes me that neocons cannot stop obsessing over Mr. Clinton's blowjobs, yet consider outing a CIA operative and then lying about it under oath to be entirely acceptable because her husband revealed the lies the Bush administration was perpetrating to pick a war.
Cheri, you are too nice to wingnuts like Anthony whose petty minds seem to run on the lines Benjamin and Sean point out: one President lied about something immaterial to his duties as Chief Executive, so no one dare criticise the Snorter in Chief for the dishonesty and deceit that characterizes every part of his administration.
How is this a Joe Wilson spin? As usual, you have your head up your a**. While Libby may slime his way out of it, it doesn't mean he and his superiors are by any means innocent. The entire Bush regime is made up of complete scum.
Libby did lie under oath and should pay for that. The real bad guys in this picture appear to be immune to questioning under oath. That is the tragedy of this case.
As to the Bill Clinton comments. Remember, the House had no interest in pursuing the matter after impeachment. There were good reasons for that.
It doesn't really matter if Libby gets off....he's not the real culprit anyway, as I mentioned. He is the fall guy. Brave fellows like Cheney and Rove are hiding behind him. And if he does get convicted Bush will probably pardon him anyway. I just hope this whole thing opens peoples' eyes a bit to the dirty tricks going on in the White House. Of course there are still plenty of people wearing blinders....Don H is a case in point.
Yeah, and then a NY Times Best Seller book, and numerous appearances on shows like 60 Minutes all in a lead up to the 2004 election. You guys are so gullible. You only see what you want to see.
Where in the hell do you receive your information? Or should I say misinformation? Any right-wing zealot with National Enquirer-like creditials who creates a website? You apparently read anything that supports or conforms to your preconceived notions about what you believe.
Your propensity to intentionally twist/spin any story that doesn't conform to your warped beliefs is astonishing.
By the way, why aren't you in Iraq making your family proud? Are they as ashamed of you as you should be of yourself? Huh, Mr. Warhawk? Oh, I forgot, you're not of military age. Like I, or anyone else believes that.
I provided a link, nimrod. Figure that out, then well talk about the rest of your jibberish.
By the way, are you writing from boot camp?
"By the way, are you writing from boot camp?"
No, I'm writing from my lapton, which is currently perched on yo mamma's ass.
I knew you would were not writing from boot camp. Enlisting in a time of war would take some balls, which you obviously lack. By the way, how often do you violate your cats?
I welcome and appreciate intelligent and well thought out comments, none of which you offer.
All you do is take information out of context to suit your purpose. In a sense, it's like LYING BY OMISSION. Whatever the subject matter, you intentionally and continually omit pertinent information, which is vital to a story. You are also guilty of trying, unsuccessfuly I might add, to cast a conspiratorial shadow on every source or any subject matter you disagree with. Ex. Any story in the NYT that accurately portrays the Bush regime as the lying, corrupt, apathetic gang of criminals that they are.
Your latest attempt to distract from the real issue just reveals how desperate and stupid you really are.
Anyways, this Scooter story is going nowhere and it doesn't deserve any intelligent debate. The wheels have fallen off the scooter.
Do you think Scooter's going to walk? I don't want to appear pessimistic, but I have a bad feeling this smileball and the rest of this criminal regime is going to walk away relatively unscathed in terms of serving any time or having to resign.
I also think that you can't really sully the reputation of any of these deceitful, corrupt, and immoral bunch of scumbuckets.
To follow constant news of the trial ( more than I want, but interesting for a bit) check out Firedoglake. Continuous blogging from the trial.
No go, go my friend, and create havoc among the neocons.
I heard that Chaney was not going to testify! PS
Thanks for your comment.
The press likes to repeat the phrases about Libby and the outing of Ms. Plame which is very misleading. Some have stated it correctly and said it is a trial about whether Libby gave conflicting information to the FBI ( Like the Martha Stewart crime).
That is a tough prove.
(Regarding the protection of the outing of Ms. Plame look it up on the net. One of the authors of the law was Tensing -ck.spelling- and she said Ms. Plame did not meet the law standards.)
I see lots of charges passed around by several commenters but little facts to back them up. Maybe everyone is just reading the headlines of the main stream press?