What the 'Shield' Covered Up

[Fred Jones]

What the 'Shield' Covered Up

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103101386.html

Has anyone noticed that the coverup worked?

In his impressive presentation of the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby last week, Patrick Fitzgerald expressed the wish that witnesses had testified when subpoenas were issued in August 2004, and "we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005."

Note the significance of the two dates: October 2004, before President Bush was reelected, and October 2005, after the president was reelected. Those dates make clear why Libby threw sand in the eyes of prosecutors, in the special counsel's apt metaphor, and helped drag out the investigation.

As long as Bush still faced the voters, the White House wanted Americans to think that officials such as Libby, Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney had nothing to do with the leak campaign to discredit its arch-critic on Iraq, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.

And Libby, the good soldier, pursued a brilliant strategy to slow the inquiry down. As long as he was claiming that journalists were responsible for spreading around the name and past CIA employment of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, Libby knew that at least some news organizations would resist having reporters testify. The journalistic "shield" was converted into a shield for the Bush administration's coverup.

Bush and his disciples would like everyone to assume that Libby was some kind of lone operator who, for this one time in his life, abandoned his usual caution. They pray that Libby will be the only official facing legal charges and that political interest in the case will dissipate.

You can tell the president worries that this won't work, because yesterday he did what he usually does when he's in trouble: He sought to divide the country and set up a bruising ideological fight. He did so by nominating a staunchly conservative judge to the Supreme Court.

Judge Samuel Alito is a red flag for liberals and red meat for Bush's socially conservative base. Alito has a long paper trail as a 15-year veteran of a court of appeals and a strong right-wing reputation. This guarantees a huge battle that will serve the president even if Alito's nomination fails: Anything that "unites the base" and distracts attention from the Fitzgerald investigation is good news for Bush.

That is why Senate Democrats -- and one hopes they might be joined by some brave Republicans -- should insist that before Alito's nomination is voted on, Bush and Cheney have some work to do.

The Fitzgerald indictment makes perfectly clear that the White House misled the public as to its involvement in sliming Wilson and talking about Plame.

Bush needs to tell the public -- yes, the old phrase still applies -- what he knew about the operation to discredit Wilson and when he knew it. And he shouldn't hide behind those "legalisms" that Republicans were so eager to condemn in the Clinton years.

The obligation to come clean applies, big-time, to Cheney, who appears at several critical points in the saga detailed in the Fitzgerald indictment. What exactly transpired in the meetings between Libby and Cheney on the Wilson case? It is inconceivable that an aide as careful and loyal as Libby was a rogue official. Did Cheney set these events in motion? This is a question about good government at least as much as it is a legal matter.

Fitzgerald has made clear that he wants to keep this case going if doing so will bring us closer to the truth. Lawyers not involved in the case suggest that the indictment was written in a way that could encourage Libby, facing up to 30 years in prison, to cooperate in that effort.

But there is a catch. If Libby, through nods and winks, knows that at the end of Bush's term, the president will issue an unconditional pardon, he will have no interest in helping Fitzgerald, and every interest in shutting up. If Bush truly wants the public to know all the facts in the leak case, as he has claimed in the past, he will announce now that he will not pardon Libby. That would let Fitzgerald finish his work unimpeded, and we would all have a chance, at last, to learn how and why this sad affair came to pass.

[Predicto]

Pretty much sums it up.

Fitzgerald is not going after Libby because he misspoke. He is going after him because he obstructed an investigation. Just like in a mob prosecution, you nail a little guy and hope he rolls over on the bigger fish. I doubt it's going to work here.

[Fred Jones]

Pretty much sums it up.

Fitzgerald is not going after Libby because he misspoke. He is going after him because he obstructed an investigation. Just like in a mob prosecution, you nail a little guy and hope he rolls over on the bigger fish. I doubt it's going to work here.

I agree 100% that it will not work here. Libby will fall on his sword regardless of a pardon in the future. However, I see Bush giving a pardon on his way out ala Clinton.

[twa]

:laugh:

One serious question.

IF what you say is true,Why was Libby not charged with conspiracy?

Could it be this is mostly just the dems wishing it wre true

[Predicto]

:laugh:

One serious question.

IF what you say is true,Why was Libby not charged with conspiracy?

Could it be this is mostly just the dems wishing it wre true

Maybe because Fitzgerald does not charge people until he has the evidence to make the charges stick? And he doesn't have that evidence, in part because Libby obstructed the investigation?

[Kilmer17]

by EJ Dionne.

That's where I stopped reading.

Im sure I can find a Newsmax piece to contradict it if the left insists. Both have the same amount of credibility.