Cheney & Thiessen's Terrible Torture Tales Come Tumbling Doqn

Yet again the closer we get to Cheney's dreaded "Holy Grail" memos which allegedly prove the Effectiveness of Harsh Interrogation Torture, the more those memos look like nothing more than Pyrite since what they claim simply didn't happen.

For some time, former Vice President Dick Cheney has insisted that the declassification of various CIA memos will prove once and for all that the Bush administration's torture regime was successful at keeping America safe. But as Michael Isikoff reported over the weekend, the recently-released report from the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility contains disclosures that "could prove awkward for Cheney and his supporters."

More from Countdown



Transcript

OLBERMANN: Give me context for this because you were there; what
Cheney meant to the whole concept of enhanced interrogation, as they
phrased it, and what this erroneous memo meant to Cheney's role in that.

WILKERSON: I'm convinced that David Addington in Cheney's office was the brainchild of what John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Douglas Feith, Jim Haines over at Defense OSD, general counsel, all wound up producing. Here's what you discovered, what the memo I think corroborates-what I suspected all along was that they were doing this sort of thing, this enhanced interrogation, this torture, to people long before the legal opinion was ever asked for, and thus rendered Bybee and Yoo and by others at OCL and the Department of Justice.

So I think this corroborates that as early as May, possibly, in 2002,
they were using these techniques, and then they went to Justice and said, we have cold feet; how about giving us legal justification. Which makes what Yoo and Bybee and others did even more heinous, in my view.

The key problem with the dates is the fact that the supposed key fact extracted from Abu Zubaydah was the identify of Jose Padilla - only Padilla was arrested in may, and the memos authorizing water-boarding and harsh techniques weren't even written. until August.

This Date problem is something that was first noted in 2008 by Scott Horton in the L.A. Times.

... Yoo's account of how and why the torture memos were crafted may not hold up. Congress is preparing hearings into the subject, and they have invited Yoo to testify. International law scholar Philippe Sands and other writers have punched holes in Yoo's claims about the facts. It increasingly appears that the Bush interrogation program was already being used before Yoo was asked to write an opinion. He may therefore have provided after-the-fact legal cover. That would help explain why Yoo strained to take so many implausible positions in the memos.

In March and April Zubaydah was being interrogated largely by FBI Agent Ali Soufan, and it's long been Soufan's contention that he gained information about Padilla without using harsh techniques, although there remains ssome despute and confusion on this because Soufan wasn't theonly person interrogating Zudaydah, he was also being talked to by CIA personnel and CiA Contractors.

It was the Contractors who mistreated Zubaydah, not regular CIA personnel - at one point it got so bad Soufan nearly Arrested them.

The agent, Ali Soufan, was known as one of the bureau's top experts on Al Qaeda. He also had a reputation as a shrewd interrogator who could work fluently in both English and Arabic. Soufan yelled at one CIA contractor and told him that what he was doing was wrong, ineffective and an affront to American values. At one point, Soufan discovered a dark wooden "confinement box" that the contractor had built for Abu Zubaydah. It looked, Soufan recalls, "like a coffin." The mercurial agent erupted in anger, got on a secure phone line and called Pasquale D'Amuro, then the FBI assistant director for counterterrorism. "I swear to God," he shouted, "I'm going to arrest these guys!"

D'Amuro and other officials were alarmed at what they heard from Soufan. They fretted about the political consequences of abusive interrogations and the Washington blowback they thought was inevitable, say two high-ranking FBI sources who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters. According to a later Justice Department inspector general's report, D'Amuro warned FBI Director Bob Mueller that such activities would eventually be investigated. "Someday, people are going to be sitting in front of green felt tables having to testify about all of this," D'Amuro said, according to one of the sources.

Mueller ordered Soufan and a second FBI agent home. He then directed that bureau personnel no longer participate in CIA interrogations. In the corridors of the White House, Justice Department and U.S. intelligence agencies, heated debates ensued. Three months later, on Aug. 1, 2002, Justice lawyers issued a chilling memo blessing everything the CIA contractors had proposed—including waterboarding, or simulated drowning, a ghoulish technique that was administered to Abu Zubaydah 83 times.

So the question is did Soufan get the information as he claims, or did the contractors he nearly arrested get it - without legal authorization?

The other question is that if Zubaydah had already given up both Padilla and KSM as Soufan contends, why did they need to start using Harsh Techniques at all - unless they weren't hearing what they wanted to hear, which at the time was How is Saddam Huessein connected to al Qaeda and 9-11?"

As Wilkerson correctly points out it was the false claim that Saddam had trained al Qaeda on using WMD's actually was generated using torture from Ibn Shayk al-Libi whose confession was used to convince Colin Powell into putting on his Iraq presentation to the UN.

Soufan's primary critic has been former Bush Speechwriter Marc Thiessen who just yesterday - after reports that Padilla was arrested months before the Yoo/Bybee memos were written - appeared live at the Heritage Foundation to continue hawking his book "Courting Disaster":




I actually crashed the Live Facebook Event and posted some of the following comments/critiques as Thiessen was spouting his rhetoric: (Links and additional text added)

- OPR report confirms that information from Zubaydah about Padilla was gained *before* Water-boarding

- If we're in a "War on Terror" then yes, al Qaeda members are "Prisoners of War" and protected by Geneva - confirmed by Hamden v Rumsfeld

- Torture was banned by McCain's Detainee Treatment Act (Said in response to Thiessen claiming Obama didn't ban Torture, technically he didn't he just ordered the Army Field Manual be used by CIA in accord with the DTA)

- Waterboarding was prosecuted as a War Crime in WWII and Vietnam, this was before Reagan signed UN Convention Against Torture in 1988 & Congress passed War Crimes Act in 1993 (Thiessen contends Water-boarding isn't Torture)

- During WWII the English gained the best intelligence from Top Nazi Generals by treating them Humanely

- Thiessen Lies when he says "No one in bush Admin suggested Saddam was connected to 9-11" Bush had Habbush, head of Iraqi intelligence making that exact claim that Mohammod Atta had been trained by Saddams Intel forces (In a forged letter). Yes, I've read UNCAT & War Crimes Act. (In response to someone asking wear I earned my law degree and if I'd read the UN Convention Against Torture & War Crimes Act - I have, they're clear enough for a layman to understand, "No affronts to Personal Dignity" leaves zero wiggle room, No means "No".)

- War Crimes (Act 18 USC 2441) states "All Greavious (sic) violations of Geneva" are punishable by 5 years in prison or death (AG Gonzales was aware of this enough to argue that Bush should determine that Al Qeada and Taliban were not covered by Geneva in order to avoid being prosecuted for War Crimes. Bush signed order to this effect in Feb of 2002 - this is very likely the letter than the CIA Contractors waved in Soufan's face - "We gave the green light from Gonzales!" - they said. That Letter still didn't cover the Torture Statute (18 USC 2340) - an omission that was addressed by a Bybee memo that redefined any Torture short of Death literally out of existence - and was later overturned by Hamdan v Rumsfeld which re-guaranteed Geneva protections for All Detainees)

- Thiessen claims water-boarding KSM stopped Library Tower Plot - yet it was already stopped, whose a monster? (In response to Thiessen claiming those who oppose harsh techniques are "monstrous" because it will lead to Americans dying horribly)

- FBI Agent Ali Soufan claims he got Padillia ID from Zubaydah before Harsh Techniques, Thiessens book - which I've reviewed disputes this claiming Soufan wouldn't know since he was gone by June, but Padilla was arrested in May - how's that work?

- Kris, this isn't about the terrorist behavior, it's about our behavior under our laws and Constitution - ever heard of the 8th Amendment? (In response to commenter saying we should attack terrorists as hard as they attack us. What are we in kindergarden - "I know you are but what am I?")

- Kris, if we can just use "any available resource" why don't we just Nuke Afghanistan and Pakistan and be done with it? (Something that Yoo stated the President can do - without Congressional approval)

- The techniques Thiessen is endorsing were developed by the Communists to force compliance and gain False Political Confessions, we trained our Special Forces in S.E.R.E to resist - Bush used that training as basis for program

- Kris, Supreme Court has already established - as documented by 14th Amendment - that anyone under U.S. Jurisdictions has Equal Protection of Law, regardless of where they came from, even Terrorists see Hamdan v Rumsfeld

- What do we do? Lots of things that are all fully legal and for more effective. Look up Interrogator Matthew Alexander, who helped find and kill Zarqawi Head of Al Qaeda ni Iraq. It'll open your eyes to possibilities

It was lively debate, but it's sad to say most of them weren't up on the facts or the law. The only thing I didn't respond to during the chat was Thiessen's claim that after water-boarding KSM gave us a"Master's Class" on the inner workings of al Qaeda, yet he said during his Military commissions that after he was Tortured he just told us Stories, plus he clearly didn't lead us to Bin Laden.

Seems to me we more likely got a "Master's Class" in bullshit.

Vyan

Cheney is Still a Fact-Mangling Dick

After slipping out from his undisclosed bunker, Richard B. Cheney appeared On This Week and yet again criticized President Obama for not following in his torture-monger foot steps.

Via Raw Story

"I think you ought to have all of those capabilities on the table," Cheney told ABC's Jonathan Karl Sunday.

Cheney also said he opposed the Obama administration's ban on waterboarding.

"He announced when he came in last year that they would never use anything other than the U.S. Army manual, which doesn't include those techniques," Cheney said. "I think that's a mistake."

Before I get into the meat of this let me first give Dick some credit for correctly pointing out that Sarah Palin is a War-mongering Super Wingnut for suggesting Obama should go to War with Iran to get re-elected, and for exposing John McCain as a liar and hypocrite for ignoring the Militaries own decision making process on "Don't Ask Don't Tell".

Not that he put it in those terms exactly.

After that though, it was all down hill.

Full Transcript.

As I pointed out just yesterday there is no evidence - ZERO - that Cheney's Torture-Lite(tm) techniques would have given us better information that what we're already getting from Omar AbdulMutallab by gaining the cooperation and support of his family.

For the record, he's wasn't Mirandized until 9 Hours After his arrest. Richard Reid the "Show Bomber" whose still isn't an American Citizen was Mirandized in the first five minutes back in 2001.

And yes, what Cheney is suggesting is Torture - Cheney's own former Chief of Staff at the Pentagon Ruled that it was in Military Court with a detainee who wasn't even water-boarded.

These techniques were developed by Communist Countries in order to illicit false confessions for political purposes - the same way that Cheney tried to have the Iraqi Head of Security Water-boarded so that he would claim Saddam had something to do with 9-11.

(Sorry about the bad audio)


Those tactics don't get you the TRUTH, Cheney should know that since FBI Director Mueller has announced they didn't Foil a Single Terror Plot with information from Coercive Interrogations.

Also the system that Cheney continues to champion that he and Bush "put in place" was smashed to bits by the Supreme Court as Unconstitutional as Hamdan v Rumsfeld in 2006.

(c) Because UCMJ Article 36 has not been complied with here, the rules specified for Hamdan's commission trial are illegal. The procedures governing such trials historically have been the same as those governing courts-martial. Although this uniformity principle is not inflexible and does not preclude all departures from courts-martial procedures, any such departure must be tailored to the exigency that necessitates it.

...

(d) The procedures adopted to try Hamdan also violate the Geneva Conventions. The D. C. Circuit dismissed Hamdan's challenge in this regard on the grounds, inter alia, that the Conventions are not judicially enforceable and that, in any event, Hamdan is not entitled to their protections. Neither of these grounds is persuasive.

Now Bush and Congress responded to this decision with the Military Commissions Act, but even the tribunals established under this act have had a Rocky Road with at least SEVEN Prosecutors who've resigned in protest because of the disorganization of the Commissions and slipshod handling of the evidence.

"I am highly concerned, to the point that I believe I can no longer serve as a prosecutor at the Commissions, about the slipshod, uncertain 'procedure' for affording defense counsel discovery."

Even before Hamdan in 2004 the CIA Inspector General had ruled that the program was deeply illegal and ineffective.

The real trouble began on May 7, 2004, the day the C.I.A. inspector general, John L. Helgerson, completed a devastating report. In thousands of pages, it challenged the legality of some interrogation methods, found that interrogators were exceeding the rules imposed by the Justice Department and questioned the effectiveness of the entire program.

Because of this Cheney's pet interrogation program was all but dead by 2005.

And even if AbdulMuttalab had been put into the Military System, he would have still be required to have a lawyer as per a decision from former Federal Judge (And Bush Attorney General) Michael Mukasey ruled in the Jose Padilla Case.

Via Glenn Greenwald

I want to highlight one extremely relevant consideration concerning Judge Mukasey -- the impressive role he played in presiding over the Jose Padilla case in its earliest stages. After Padilla was first detained in April 2002 and declared an "enemy combatant," he was held incommunicado, denied all access to the outside the world, including counsel, and the Bush administration refused to charge him with any crimes. A lawsuit was filed on Padilla's behalf by a New York criminal defense lawyer, Donna Newman, demanding that Padilla be accorded the right to petition for habeas corpus and that, first, he be allowed access to a lawyer. That lawsuit was assigned to Judge Mukasey, which almost certainly made the Bush DOJ happy.

But any such happiness proved to be unwarranted. Judge Mukasey repeatedly defied the demands of the Bush administration, ruled against them, excoriated them on multiple occasions for failing to comply with his legally issued orders, and ruled that Padilla was entitled to contest the factual claims of the government and to have access to lawyers. He issued these rulings in 2002 and 2003, when virtually nobody was defying the Bush administration on anything, let alone on assertions of executive power to combat the Terrorists. And he made these rulings in the face of what was became the standard Bush claim that unless there was complete acquiescence to all claimed powers by the President, a Terrorist attack would occur and the blood would be on the hands of those who impeded the President.

Both Jose Padilla and Ali Al-marri, the only two persons arrested for terrorism on U.S. Soil who actually were placed in Military Custody, were both ultimately tried and convicted in civilian courts.

So essentially what Cheney suggests shouldn've been "on the table" really isn't even legally viable. It's nowhere near the table, in fact it's not even in the same room as the law and the Constitution.

Speaking of "Granting Terrorist the Rights of Americans" - I thought Conservatives believed that the one thing that makes America unique and "Superior" to other countries was idea that Human Rights are granted By God rather than by government, isn't that what makes them "Inalienable"?

Dick Move Number 2 was Cheney's attempt to take Credit for the Iraq Withdrawal, which conventiently ignores how long Bush and Cheney both argued as recently as last June that the last thing we should do in Iraq - is set a date for Withdrawal or else chaos might erupt as the insurgent simply "Wait for us to leave".

Mr. Cheney told The Washington Times’ America’s Morning News radio show that he is a strong believer in Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and that the general is doing what needs to be done.

“But what he says concerns me: That there is still a continuing problem. One might speculate that insurgents are waiting as soon as they get an opportunity to launch more attacks.

Unlike the Bush Administration the Obama Presidency actually has a chance to "Win" the War on Al Qeada by aggressively pursuing them in Afghanistan (where a brand new massive offensive was just announced) and working closely with our allies in Pakistan as well as drying up their recruitment and re-enforcements by recommitting our country to the Rule of Law, our own Constitution, Ideals of Justice, Fairplay and the Geneva Conventions.

Y'know - everything that you FAILED to do - Dick.

Vyan


P.S. And Cheney et al. may not entirely be out of legal jeopardy on this, there's considerable evidence the Abu Zubaydah was abused long before the Yoo, Bybee memos were even written. The British inquiry into the Iraq War has found that Binyam Mohammed was brutally tortured also before the OLC Authorizing Memos.

The U.S. Prosecuted and Executed Japanese Soldiers for Water-boarding Americans, and even court-martialed and dishonorably dischared the U.S. Soldier pictured in the left of this photo for helping to water-board a member of the Vietcong.



In 1983 a Texas Sherrif was prosecuted and sentenced to 10 Years for water-boarding a suspect. All of that was before the President Reagan signed the U.N. Convention against Torture in 1988, and the War Crimes Act as passed in 1994. With Eric Holder's Special Prosecutor still out there investigating this issue, Cheney is a long way from being entirely "Safe".

Cheney wants to Testify about Torture? Let Him!

Dick - Mr. Cloak and Dagger/Man-sized Safe/Fourth-Branch - Cheney wants to go on record and "get the Truth Out" about the Bush program of detention and torture.

CHENEY: I think if you look at this intelligence program that when things are quieter, 20 or 30 years from now, you’ll be able to look back on this and say this is one of the great success stories of American intelligence.

I think this statement will go down in infamy right along side "greeted as liberators" and "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction" and that 20 or 30 years from now most of the people involved will just be finishing their sentences for the commission of War Crimes.

But then, I always did try to look on the sunny side of things.

SCHIEFFER: Would you go back and talk to the Congress?

CHENEY: Certainly. I’ve made it very clear that I feel very strongly that what we did here was exactly the right thing to do. And if I don’t speak out, then where do we find ourselves, Bob? Then the critics have free run, and there isn’t anybody there on the other side to tell the truth. So it’s important — it’s important that we...

SCHIEFFER: Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was on this broadcast recently. And I said, do you intend to ask the former vice president to come up? And he said if he will testify under oath. Would you be willing to testify under oath?

CHENEY: I’d have to see what the circumstances are and what kind of precedent we were setting. But certainly I wouldn’t be out here today if I didn’t feel comfortable talking about what we’re doing publicly.

Cheney is current hanging his entire legacy on two current classified CIA memos, but already (possibly in direct response to his own pushing of this issues) reports are surfacing that - yet again - this claim is a pig in a poke. As has been pointed out in another rec'd Dkos diary the fact is that Cheney's "Holy Grail" is apparently made of pyrite, but I think there's even more to this story. I think we already know what that report is going to say, and that it's already been debunked.

That diary points to this previous released but redacted report by the CIA Inspector Generals Office.

Yet, other leaks of the redacted portion of this report have been springing up. via Thinkprogress.

Government officials familiar with the CIA’s early interrogations say the most powerful evidence of apparent excesses is contained in the “top secret” May 7, 2004, inspector general report, based on more than 100 interviews, a review of the videotapes and 38,000 pages of documents. The full report remains closely held, although White House officials have told political allies that they intend to declassify it for public release when the debate quiets over last month’s release of the Justice Department’s interrogation memos. [...]

Although some useful information was produced, the report concluded that “it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks,” according to the Justice Department’s declassified summary of it.

Oddly enough I've seen those words before. That's exactly the same thing that one of Cheney's "Little People" Stephen Bradbury wrote in his May 30, 2005 memo to CIA counsel John Rizzo, when quoting from the 2004 CIA Inspector Generals report.

Which in a section which has apparently not been included in the redacted PDF above, said according to McClatchy as quoted by Bradbury that :

"As the IG Report notes, it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks. And because the CIA has used enhanced techniques sparingly, 'there is limited data on which to assess their individual effectiveness'," Bradbury wrote, quoting the IG report.

Yet Bradbury's memo also makes the following claim quoting from the famed "Effectiveness Memo":

before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation of KSM, KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, "Soon, you will know." Id. We understand that the use of enhanced techniques in the interrogations of KSM, Zubaydah, and others, by contrast, has yielded critical information. See IG Report at 86, 90-91 (describing increase in intelligence reports attributable to use of enhanced techniques). As Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced techniques, "":"brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have 'reached the limit of their ability to withhold ie in the face of psychological and physicaI hardships." Effectiveness Memo at 2. And,indeed, we understand that since the use of enhanced. techniques, "KSM and Abu Zubaydah have been pivotal sources because of their ability and willingness to provide their analysis and speculation about the capabilities, methodologies, and mindsets of terrorists,"

Some of the info Cheney is fishing for, and was alluded to by Bradbury may also have revealed by former Bush Speechwriter Marc Thiessen who claimed:

THIESSEN: The CIA developed these alternative interrogation techniques, and all of a sudden he started talking. Zubaydah’s information led us to Ramsey bin al Shibh, who was was one of the 9/11 hijackers. Together, they gave us the information that led the capture of KSM. Then, KSM gave us information about another al Qaeda operative, Majid Khan, who was in CIA custody. He told us that Majid Khan had been tasked to give $50,000 to an operative named Zubair, who was developing plots with a Southeast Asian group called JI.

These claims fly in the face of statements made by FBI Director Mueller denying any major plots were "foiled" by Enhanced Interrogation. As well as reports from FBI Interrogator Ali Soufan who categorically refutes Cheney's allegations since he's the one who actually did get good information from Zubaydah BEFORE he was Tortured.

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

Torturing Zubaydah did not lead to capturing al-Shibh or Padilla. The dates don't add up - just like the claim that KSM gave up information on the Library Tower plot - only that had also already been foiled a year previously.

Yet again, all we have here - iS EPIC FAIL. Just like Iraq and WMD, or Saddam's link to 9-11 and al Qaeada (a large portion of which was jinned-up as the result of the Torture of the late Ibn al-Shayhk al-Libi)

All they have to offer is Fail!

Cheney is desperate to believe, and desperate to promote the idea that the people who authorized and promoted these program are "Heroes" - but if so, why did they try to suppress the opinion papers of Phillip Zelikow? Why did they knowingly, and with clear consciensness of guilt, perpetrate a Criminal Coverup by attempting to hide "high-value" detainees from the Red Cross which has the international duty to determine if Torture and War Crimes have Occurred. Which, eventually, is exactly what they did.

If Cheney is desd-set on having this out in public - fine, then let's give him what he wants. Let's stack him and Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury (who are about to get sanctioned by Bush's own OPR Report) against the real-life experience (not made up "24"-o-phallic theory) of Soufan, Matthew Alexander, and the contrasting legal arguments from Zelikow, NSA Counsel John Bellinger, and Secretary of State Counsel William Howard Taft and see which view remains standing after a full analysis of the facts.

Better yet, since Cheney is so convinced of his righteousness, his innocence and so desperate to testify, let's do it in front of a JUDGE AND JURY.

Yep, nothing like a War Crimes Trial to help clear the air.

Let him talk, it does the soul good. (The soul of The Nation I mean, not Cheney's - since his was replaced with a Endless Black Pit of SUCK years ago)


Vyan

Calling Dick's Big Bluff: Torture Fails

So the CIA has received Fmr. Vice President Dick Cheny's request to release documents that "prove" once and for all the effectiveness of his torture (Yes, Torture) program.

There's just one problem with that argument, the CIA doesn't do the job of enforcing the law or catching terrorist, the armed forces and the FBI do that. So what, besides today's revelation that Abu Zubaydah gave up KSM without Torture does the FBI have to say?

FBI Director Mueller to Vanity Fair when asked if "Enhanced Interrogation" had foiled any plots?

I don’t believe that has been the case

Ruh Roh!

On the other hand regularly gumshoe police work by local law enforcement and the FBI DID succeed at protecting American citizens.

In an interview in London in April 2008, I remind F.B.I. director Robert Mueller of the attacks planned against targets on American soil since 9/11 that his agents have disrupted: for example, a plot to kill soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and another to wreak mayhem at army recruiting centers and synagogues in and around Torrance, California. These and other homegrown conspiracies were foiled by regular police work. The F.B.I. learned of the Fort Dix plot from a Circuit City store where a technician raised the alarm when asked to copy firearms-training videos, while the Torrance cell was rounded up when cops probed the backgrounds of two of its members after they allegedly robbed a local gas station.

No waterborading, no wide-net of electronic surveillance, just a reasonable TIP and good follow up.

Like the tip by one Pheonix FBI Agent in 2001 that I've got some guys where who want to fly planes, but don't much care about landing them.

Time and time again we hear "The Tactics were Necessary" or "There was no other way", but clearly there IS another way. A way that works.

Furthermore, what seems more and more apparent from the various sources which are now coming forward in conjuction with the Levin Senate Armed Services Report is that torture under the Bush Administration wasn't used to provide information to save Amercians, it was used to proved information to save Bush's Foreign Policy, and justify the Iraq War

Several of those I interviewed point out the dearth of specific claims the administration has proffered. “The proponents of torture say, ‘Look at the body of information that has been obtained by these methods.’ But if K.S.M. and Abu Zubaydah did give up stuff, we would have heard the details,” says Cloonan. “What we got was pabulum.” A former C.I.A. officer adds: “Why can’t they say what the good stuff from Abu Zubaydah or K.S.M. is? It’s not as if this is sensitive material from a secret, vulnerable source. You’re not blowing your source but validating your program. They say they can’t do this, even though five or six years have passed, because it’s a ‘continuing operation.’ But has it really taken so long to check it all out?”

Officials who analyzed Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation reports say that the reports were afforded the highest value within the Bush administration not because of the many American lives they were going to save but because they could be cited repeatedly against those who doubted the wisdom of ousting Saddam by force.

“We didn’t know he’d been waterboarded and tortured when we did that analysis, and the reports were marked as credible as they could be,” the former Pentagon analyst tells me. “The White House knew he’d been tortured. I didn’t, though I was supposed to be evaluating that intelligence.” To draw conclusions about the importance of what Abu Zubaydah said without knowing this crucial piece of the background nullified the value of his work. “It seems to me they were using torture to achieve a political objective. I cannot believe that the president and vice president did not know who was being waterboarded, and what was being given up.”

Oh, I think the did know. Particularly since Zubaydah and KSM weren't the only ones this technique was used against.

Ibn Shayk Al-Libi, an associate of Zubaydah who was captured and tortured in Egypt, was the primary source of information that Iraq had provided chemical weapons training to Al Qeada. Guess what, this information was false

Just like the information that Iraq possessed "Mobile Weapons Labs" come from a former Iraqi who had relocated to Germany named Rafid Alwan, aka Curveball. (See this Report from BBC Newsnight) who was also, like, al-Libi, Lying.



The information provided by Curveball and al-Libi together led us into unneccesary and tragic War with an Unarmed Nation. And many others were coercively mistreated and suffered in The Black Sites, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram AFB in order to help bolster their false claims.

Tortured to provide Lies to justify other lies. We have to come to grips with the fact that the U.S. deliberately waged a Campaign of Terror across the middle-east all based on LIES!

What needs to be asked now is not just what information we received through "enhanced interrogation" but also - how much of that information was BULLSHIT and led us down rat-holes and on wild-goose chases like the "Liberty City Six".

It really doesn't matter if any of these claims were ever true, because if so it probably wasn't neccessary to go these lengths, most likely the reason they were "resistant" is because the questions being asked were bogus, and by using these methods all we've done is get more bad information. Bad information that cost far more lives than any of the "good" information (assuming there somehow is any that the FBI director doesn't know about) may have saved.

Garbage In, garbage out.


Vyan

Obama Stomps a Mud-hole in Cheney's Ass

Obama on 60 Minutes

Obama: How many terrorist have actually been brought to justice under (The Bush System)? It hasn't made us safer.

The answer to that question is one - Jose Padilla. 6 years, one conviction.

As was previewed yesterday by muzikal233 President Obama slapped down hard on the notion that he's made us "less safe".

Transcript via Huffpo

PRESIDENT OBAMA:

I fundamentally disagree with Dick Cheney. Not surprisingly. You know, I think that-- Vice President Cheney has been-- at the head of a-- movement whose notion is somehow that we can't reconcile our core values, our Constitution, our belief that we don't torture, with our national security interests. I think he's drawing the l-- wrong lesson from history.

The facts don't bear him out. I think he is-- that attitude, that philosophy has done incredible damage-- to our image and position in the world. I mean, the fact of the matter is after all these years how many convictions actually came out of Guantanamo? How many-- how many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney? It hasn't made us safer. What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment. Which means that there is constant effective recruitment of-- Arab fighters and Muslim fighters against U.S. interests all around the world.

Obama's comments have to be looked at in the context not only of self-serving ramblings of John Yoo, but also Col Larry Wilkerson - Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff at the State Department who states that Cheney and Rumsfeld knoew that only 24 detainees at Gitmo were actual terrorists and that over 700 innocent people held for years without reason or justice.



Wilkerson's response to Cheney via the Washington Note.

Simply stated, even for those two dozen or so of the detainees who might well be hardcore terrorists, there was virtually no chain of custody, no disciplined handling of evidence, and no attention to the details that almost any court system would demand. Falling back on "sources and methods" and "intelligence secrets" became the Bush administration's modus operandi to camouflage this grievous failing.

...

In addition, it has never come to my attention in any persuasive way--from classified information or otherwise--that any intelligence of significance was gained from any of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay other than from the handful of undisputed ring leaders and their companions, clearly no more than a dozen or two of the detainees, and even their alleged contribution of hard, actionable intelligence is intensely disputed in the relevant communities such as intelligence and law enforcement.

So not only were the vast majority of the people held in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram AFB completely innocent - even the little information we received from the "real" terrorist was bogus.

What a waste.

Particularly since this system, this treatment, has been the number one thing Al Qaeda has been using to recruit more fighters according to the interrogator who took out Abu Zarqawi.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. ... It’s no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me — unless you don’t count American soldiers as Americans.

Former Gitmo Prosecutor Col Vandeveldt's experience completely supports Wilkersen and Obama - not Cheney.




What Cheney doesn't understand - or apparently care about - is that THIS IS NOT JUSTICE. This system can't be allowed to stand and doesn't make us "safer" - it does the exact opposite.

Obama is dead right, Cheney is dead wrong.

Vyan

Cheney: Let them Eat Death

When confronted with the deep poverty and starvation of the French people due to a lack of bread, legend has it that Queen Regent Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna von Habsburg-Lothringen - allegedly stated "Let them eat Cake."

This week we may have discovered another neo-Regent whose callousness and insouciance makes that infamous utterance appear practically heartfelt.

When asked about the fact the nearly 70% of Americans Oppose the Iraq War - Vice Present Richard Cheney stated:

CHENEY: So?

RADDATZ: So? You don’t care what the American people think?

CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

Fluctuations? Fluctuations? Not according to Gallup.

Does this look like a "fluctuation" or a slow inexorable slide into hell?

Cheney statement prompted the following exchange in the White House Press Room.

HELEN THOMAS: The American people are being asked to die and pay for this. And you’re saying they have no say in this war?

PERINO: No, I didn’t say that Helen. But Helen, this president was elected...

THOMAS: But it amounts to it. You’re saying we have no input at all.

PERINO: You had input. The American people have input every four years, and that’s the way our system is set up.

No, Dana, actually the people also had input during the 2006 midterm elections, where Republicans - who overwhelmingly support th was - received a massive "thumping".

But I digress, back to Darth and his heartfelt response to the information that we have now lost 4000 soldiers in Iraq and how that has affected their families.

Cheney: The president carries the biggest burden, obviously. He’s the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans, but we are fortunate to have a group of men and women, the all-volunteer force, who voluntarily put on the uniform and go in harm’s way for the rest of us.

RADDITZ: "When you talk about an all-volunteer force, some of these soldiers, airmen, Marines have been on two, three, four, some of them more than that, deployments," Raddatz said. "Do you think when they volunteered they had any idea that there would be so many deployments or stop-loss? Some of those who want to get out can't because of stop-loss?"

CHENEY: "A lot of men and women sign up because sometimes they will see developments," Cheney said. "For example, 9/11 stimulated a lot of folks to volunteer for the military because they wanted to be involved in defending the country."

Nice way to completely duck the question about STOP-LOSS, Dicky.

But sure, lots of people did sign up after 9/11 in order to go after Bin Laden! Unfortunately Bin Laden isn't in Iraq, he never in Iraq and our country didn't need defending against Saddam Hussein.

Last week the Pentagon released a report on Hussein and Al Qaeda.

On Monday, McClatchy reported that a "review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents" captured after the U.S. invasion "has found no evidence" that Saddam Hussein "had any operational links" with al Qaeda

We also found no nuclear materials or programs, no chemical weapons or programs and no plans to begin any weapons programs. Nothing. Nada. ZIP!

And as far as the President "carrying the heaviest burden" - he himself doesn't seem to think so.

I can only tell you what people on the ground, whose judgment — it’s hard for me, living in this beautiful White House, to give you an assessment, firsthand assessment. I haven’t been there; you have, I haven’t.

And then there's of course the fact - and it is a fact - that resources we have dedicated to Iraq have hurt our campaign against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan- not that John McCain knows it.

"I know of no one who believes attention to Iraq at that point diverted our attention from Tora Bora," McCain said. ...

"We should have put more boots on the ground there to apprehend [Bin Laden]. Everyone agrees. But I have no reason to believe that because we urged attention to Iraq, it had any tactical effect on the battleground."

Which I guess means that Bob Woodward is "No One" since he reported that Bush and Rumsfeld began planning to attack Iraq - even before Tora Bora.

On Nov. 21, 2001, 72 days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush directed Rumsfeld to begin planning for war with Iraq. "Let’s get started on this," Bush recalled saying. "And get Tommy Franks looking at what it would take to protect America by removing Saddam Hussein if we have to." ...

Bush’s order to Rumsfeld began an intensive process in which Franks worked in secret with a small staff, talked almost daily with the defense secretary and met about once a month with Bush.

And how about Gen Franks what did he think?

"They were in the midst of one war in Afghanistan, and now they wanted detailed planning for another? Goddamn," Franks said, "What the f*** are they talking about?"

What the f*** indeed.

But here we are, five years later, and Cheney is still talk through his A**. Especially about Iraq.

In an interview with ABC News yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that President Bush "carries the biggest burden" of the Iraq war and even compared staying the course in Iraq to the pardoning of President Nixon.

CHENEY: Thirty years later, nearly everybody would say it is exactly the right thing to do, that if he’d paid attention at the time to the polls he never would have done that. But he demonstrated, I think, great courage and great foresight, and the country was better off for what Jerry Ford did that day. And 30 years later, everybody recognized it.

And I have the same strong conviction the issues we’re dealing with today — the global war on terror, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq – that all of the tough calls the president has had to make, that 30 years from now it will be clear that he made the right decisions, and that the effort we mounted was the right one, and that if we had listened to the polls, we would have gotten it wrong.

But Cheney also took time out to insult Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) for "announc[ing] that the solution in Iraq is to withdraw," calling them "wannabes."

Wannabes? For wanting to turn away from a purely military plan - which has gone on longer than the Civil War and World War II and has failed - to one of diplomacy. To a plan that recognizes the simple fact that invading and occupying Iraq was a tragic mistake. That buying peace with cash payoffs is a bad idea, especially when the check start to bounce. That our troops are nearing and passing the breaking point, which makes us far more vulnerable and weakened on the other fronts we have - particularly Afghanistan. A plan that recognizes that a strategic retreat is often the best course of action to ultimately win.

It's well past time we got past the mudslinging over former pastors and former visit to Bosnia with or without sniper fire and got back on the real subject, redirecting this country away from the failed ideology, failed poilcies and failed strategies of the Neo-Cons and move forward to true peace, and true victory.

Like Marie Antoinette's eventual grisly end, we need to cut off the Bush/Cheney/McCain Administrations head, and end these insane policies permanently.

Vyan

Far Worse then just a Pardon

On the fourth anniversary of "Bring 'em On" and just hours after an highly unfavorable ruling by the appeals court which would have sent Irvin Lewis "Scooter" Libby to prison in just six weeks, George Walker Bush , the 43rd Resident of the White House, communted his sentence and completely obliterated all 30 months of jail time he would have served for perjury and obstruction of justice in a case that was tantamount to Treason During Wartime.

But that's not the worst part...

The public and the editorial pages across the nation are enraged.

The New York Times.

Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell.

The Washington Post

We agree that a pardon would have been inappropriate and that the prison sentence of 30 months was excessive. But reducing the sentence to no prison time at all, as Mr. Bush did — to probation and a large fine — is not defensible.

Chicago Tribune:

But in nixing the prison term, Bush sent a terrible message to citizens and to government officials who are expected to serve the public with integrity. The way for a president to discourage the breaking of federal laws is by letting fairly rendered consequences play out, however uncomfortably for everyone involved.

Dallas Morning News:

Nearly a decade ago, a GOP-led House impeached President Bill Clinton for lying under oath and obstructing justice in a civil deposition. Yesterday, a Republican president commuted the sentence of former top White House staffer Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was convicted of the same thing in a criminal investigation. Republicans are known for being tough on crime. Apparently there’s an exception when the criminal is a member of President Bush’s inner circle.

San Francisco Chronicle:

In commuting the sentence of former White House aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby, President Bush sent the message that perjury and obstruction of justice in the service of the president of the United States are not serious crimes.

And there's more on Thinkprogress.

We now know that Bush, as opposed to normal practice and procedures did not consult with the DOJ or the prosecutor prior to his decision. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald was not silent on the matter.

It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.

Unfortunately that principle doesn't guide George W. Bush, who has quite possibly never before commuted a sentence of someone who has not even served a single day of jail time, not to mention the other normal requirements such as having exhausted all appeals, and having shown "remorse" for your actions.

Libby fits none of these.

We all know that justice is more equal for some than others, but isn't it amazing that not even Judith Miller or Paris Hilton weren't able to receive the "justice" afforded to Scooter Libby?

It's even possible that this action by Bush just might have push him past the tipping point eroding away the last vestiges of his public support in the same manner that the Saturday Night Massacre essentially doomed Nixon.

But then again there's Fred Thompson, who in 1998 voted to convict and remove Bill Clinton, but now sits as a member of the Scooter Libby Defense Fund.

I am very happy for Scooter Libby. I know that this is a great relief to him, his wife and children.

While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the president’s decision.

This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life.

"A Good American" you say?

Yes, certainly let him "resume his life" because it's not like Joe Wilson who risked his life to save other Americans in Iraq as the first Gulf War started is a "Good American", and it's not like Valerie Plame-Wilson who'se career as a covert CIA operative tracking weapons of mass destruction is a "Good American" or that hundreds of other agents and assets at Brewster-Jennings who were compromised by Libby's actions were "Good Americans" -- they're just F-ing HEROES is all.

But Fredrick isn't the worst thing - just listen to what Novakula has to say.

“Bush is blamed by friends of Libby for losing control of the Plame investigation by putting it in the hands of a special prosecutor — the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald. In his decision sparing Libby jail time, Bush did not say a word of criticism about Fitzgerald.”

Yeah, right... Bush should've fired Ashcroft (like Archibald Cox) for even suggesting a Special Counsel was needed. This is how they view things in the psychosis laden "no underlying crime" world of Toensing and fTucker. There was "no crime", Plame wasn't "covert" even though Judge Walton said she was, Patrick Fitzgerald said she was, and both General Hayden and Valerie herself said she was a covert operative and covered by the IIPA while under oath before Congress.

Since these guys consider fantasy to be me more valid than fact maybe someone should point out to them that even in the first episode of Alias (the only show on TV that's ever had every one of it's episodes approved by the CIA) Sydney Bristow walked right through the front doors at Langley. Even on ABC/GOP/TV, they know that CIA agents don't avoid Langley like it's the plague.

What could be worse is what Kagro X posits, that Bush could continue to use this strategy to void all possible threats and looming prosecutions against his key advisors such as Alberto Gonzales (who is currently at risk for Perjury over the NSA Wiretaps, as well s Obstruction and Witness Tampering with Monica Goodling) or Condoleeza Rice, Harriet Myers and Sara Taylor (who are at risk for Contempt of Congress for refusing to respond to congressional subpoenas).

But I don't think that's the worst - I think, as was discussed on Rachel Maddow last night, that the reason Libby wasn't pardoned outright was to further protect the Bush Administration from scrutiny. Y'see, if Libby had been pardoned he would no longer be able to evoke his fifth amendment priviledge against self-incrimination. He's already been incriminated.

All leverage that Fitzgerald might have had to find out what really went on in this case and what's really hidden in those big Mosberg Safes, such as a reduction in sentence in exchange for a proffer against the Veep (aka Fourthbranch) has been foreclosed.

Even though the House Judiciary Committe is already planning to look into the circumstances of his commutation with hearings, this move just might be Check and Mate for Shooter in his ongoing battle against the Rule of Law.

We're seriously looking at a situation where the President and Vice President could effectively evade any and all accountability for a failed policy that left us wide-open and vulnerable on 9-11 and has led us into an unneccesary, obscenely costly and pointless Civil War in Iraq.

At this point there's only one move left for Congress to make and hold this Administration Accountable.

Impeachment.

The only question is, without the ability to make subpoenas or Contempt of Congress Stick, or the ability to get a Special Prosecutor to look into the NSA Wiretaping and/or the DOJ Purge and produce hard incontrivertable evidence (as the Nixon tapes did so long ago) - how will Congress actually get the smoking gun that they still need (yes, I know many disagree that this is needed, but IMO and likely the opinion of both Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers it is) to bring formal Impeachment charges against Cheney or Bush directly?

Cheney being a Dick and jerking around the White House Staff is annoying, but as long as Bush lets him - not a crime. Bush commuting of even pardoning Libby is not a crime. Bush firing US Attorney's is not a crime. But there clearly have been crimes committed (War Crimes, Torture, Election Fraud) and the trick is how do you catch a major criminal mastermind (Cheney) in the act when he's running the government?

Vyan


P.S. Judge Walton's response to the commutation indicates that it is self-contradictory. Someone can not serve probation without first serving jail-time under federal guidelines, and LithiumCola points out that the judges encouragement to legal counsel to gain "clarification" from the White House on the meaning of Libby's non-status status just might unveil The Wizard of Cheney hard at work manipulating the levers behind the curtain.

The Cheney Branch of Government

Olbermann on the Cheney Branch of Government

In Defense of Impeach and Remove vs Impeach Now

I wasn't planning on writing this diary today. But circumstances have forced my hand.

I'm not complaining mind you because it gives me a chance to further clarify and focus some issues on the Impeachment Front as I respond directly to yesterday's diary by buhdydharma on The Apparently Misunderstood Strategy Behind Impeach 'Now'. who was in turn responding to me (and others) when I said "One Thing We Shouldn't Do - Is Impeach Too Soon."

And just for the record I understand perfectly, I simply disagree tactically with "Impeach Now" particularly if we actually want to have a successful Conviction and Removal in the Senate.

As of now, that's not gonna happen - but it might in the future if we play our cards carefully.

The first issue is "Impeach Who" exactly?

Just for the record, I think we're only a hair's breath away from Impeaching Gonzales. If the IG investigation of his obstruction with Monica Goodling isn't just a white-wash, and Congress doesn't sit on it's hands with his obvious and repeated perjury before various committees - his ass his grass.

Gonzo needs to be taken out first, that's clear. He's the cock-blocker that's keeping us from establish a a Special Counsel to look into all the other wrong-doings of Bush and Co.

But if you're talking about Impeaching either Bush or Cheney - I think that's simply going to have to wait for a few more months, possible even a year or so until after the above (Removing Gonzales, Implementing a Special Counsel) is accomplished.

(I should note however that with Cheney's little "I'm not in the executive branch" speil while trying to avoid reporting requirements for classified information and today's revelations that he spied on White House Staffers, and set up a secret campaign of Global Warming Denial he just might be gone sooner than Gonzo at this rate. You never can predict these things perfectly.)

buhdydharma said:

It is my contention that these comments come from reading PARTS of impeachment diaries...as well as conflating a FEW poorly reasoned and presented impeach arguments with those of the more responsible impeachment advocates.

Speaking entirely for myself, I didn't write my diary yesterday based on "PARTS" of anything. I've written my own share of Impeachment diaries. To Wit.

• The Impeach Team - Winograd (CA-36), McClosky (CA-29) & Coleman (CA-28)
• RNC says Democrats have an Impeachment Agenda - They do?
• Kwiatkowski : Impeach Early and Often!
• Arianna on Huffpo: Impeach Gonzales Now!
• Sign the Impeach Gonzales Petition
• Impeach Gonzales First Movement Creeps Forward one More Step
• Rebutting the Defense Against the Impeachment of George W. Bush
• The Impeachment Case against George W. Bush - Count 4: Criminal Negligence
• The Impeachment Case Against George W. Bush. Count 3 - War Crimes, Torture and Murder
• The Impeachment Case Against George W. Bush. Count 2 - Domestic Espionage
• The Case for the Impeachment of George W. Bush : Count 1 - Intelligence Fraud
• After November 06: A Re-Defining Moment
• Dems find that Bush broke 26 Statutes
• Censure is TOO GOOD for 'em
• What Liberals Want...
• One Consistent Meme for Victory in November
• The Fastest Way to End the Iraq War
• History of Presidential Surveillance vs the Wingbats - Episode III
• DOJ Inspector General looking into Obstruction by Gonzo
• Downing Street II : Nail in the Coffin
• In the last throes of Gone-zales....?
• This Failed Presidency
• White House was warned of possible War Crimes Violations in 2002
• WWDD: What would a DEMOCRAT Do?

The other direct inspiration for my comments yesterday were many of the comments I recieved to my Contempt of Congress Diary from the day before that. Examples:

I'm not optimistic this will acccomplish (28+ / 0-)

anything.

Chairman Conyers needs to start Impeachment hearings.

If he doesn't, the stonewalling will never end.

Futility. (4+ / 0-)

"The process was designed to be slow and deliberate, to prevent its being abused and misused."

How's that working out?

We can't dick around any longer; no more little (0 / 0)

bricks!

We need to start impeachment hearings for BOTH Gonzales AND Cheney NOW!

The clock is ticking!

(This I happen to think is a somewhat fair point, the timetable I suggested yesterday would put Impeachment taking place right after the Presidential Primaries in June of '08 - which could be more than a little bit awkward, but if the case is strong and air-tight enough - ultimately that won't matter.)

We aren't gonna remove anyone, just like (1+ / 0-)

we are not gonna stop this war in this current term.

However, we CAN establish for posterity formal articles of impeachment, which will put on the record the crimes of the Bush admin.

Such will also reinvigorate our own base.

Such will also shake up the Bushie "I can't recall" defense. And the "executive privilege" defense.

And, it will be during the impeachment hearings themselves where we will discover new & interesting things;

Another poster here astutely said, when Rodino & Dash (of Watergate fame) proceeded to formal impeachment hearings, they never knew beforehand that John Dean would flip or that Butterfield would tell us about the WH taping system.

Rodino & Dash proceeded to formal impeachment hearings of NIXON with a lot LESS stuff than Conyers ALREADY has!

Impeachment isn't the real goal, and neither is removal the real goal;

THE FORMAL DISCOVERY AND FORMAL DOCUMENTATION OF BUSH CRIMES is the real goal!

Oh yeah,

THE NIXON TAPES CAME OUT ONLY AS A RESULT OF FORMAL IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS, WHICH HAD TO FIRST BE HELD!!

My diary yesterday was simply an attempt to consolidate and organize my responses to some of the above comments - particularly the last one since I felt it operated under a historical fallacy.

The simple fact is that the Nixon Tapes came out months before formal impeachment hearings began - so that's clearly an invalid justification to "Impeach Now". I was correcting his (or her) misunderstanding.

Next buhdydharma said:

To reiterate one point that somehow has been constantly and I dare say, maliciously ignored....NO responsible Impeach advocate has suggested that impeachment is not reliant on thorough investigations.

EVER.

We can certainly debate the "responsible" issue, but just from the comments I've quoted some people have indeed made that very suggestion, essentially arguing that we either already have everything we need or it's only through Impeachment proceedings that we can peirce the veil of "executive priveledge" as was noted by this commenter.

Sorry, but (21+ / 0-)

Impeachment means starting the investigation.

Conviction only comes after the evidence. My guess is that if you polled Americans on the question, "would you support the removal of the President if he were found to have committed crimes against the country and the constitution?" an overwhelming majority would say yes.

Impeachment, and impeachment alone, can enable those revelations, because only by impeachment can we cut through "executive privilege" stonewalling. That is why it is urgent and necessary.

The "Executive Priviledge" issue may also be a fair point, but there's more than one way to skin a Bush. We still have some time left to let the court battle over that issue resolve itself.

And, in point of fact, a very similar question to the one suggested by that commenter was asked by an LA Times Bloomberg Poll last April.

"If George W. Bush broke the law when he authorized government agencies to use electronic surveillance to monitor American citizens without a court warrant, do you think that is an impeachable offense, or not an impeachable offense?"

• All Adults IS 36% IS NOT 56%
• Democrats IS 53% IS NOT 36%
• Republicans IS 17% IS NOT 80%
• Independants IS 37% IS NOT 53%

"Democratic Congressman John Conyers has called for creation of a committee to look into impeaching Bush and removing him from office. Do you think Congress should or should not impeach Bush and remove him from office?"

• Should 33% Should Not 66%

Not exactly the stunning results one would expect, eh?

The point here is that the case for Impeachment has not even begun to be made yet (and the MSM isn't helping since they've hardly ever bothered to poll on the question since last year!) Congress has yet to find the "smoking gun" that would make the case complete in Bush's case.

Then buhdydharma said:

Point two, and the one that has been highlighted recently....NO ONE expects Nancy Pelosi to read an impeachment diary and suddenly throw up her hands and throw her own assessment, her own read of the politics and her common sense to the wind because of an impeachment diary on Dkos....and immediately start proceedings!

Well, of course not... but - and this is big but - we do have to hope that we, in our own small way, can have an impact on policy. These diaries aren't neccesarily written specifically for legislators - we write them primarily for each other. To help ourselves negotiate and develop activist action plans, build marching orders and implement them.

Nancy Pelosi may not read a specific Impeachment Diary, but many of us will and then get on the phone and call her office at (202) 225-0100...

Or write her a letter at

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Or post on her blog The Gavel and let her know what you think directly.

Secondly, my issue isn't with Speaker Pelosi doing "something against her better judgement" - I personally was more concerned with the level of growing impatience, cynicism and frustration that was clearly evident when Congress failed to override Bush's Veto of the Troop Redeployment plan and choose to Punt Until September, at which point I wrote Don't Panic to point out that despite Kucinich and Edwards' posturing Dems had no more viable options until they were able to gain more Republican support. As Dana Milbank pointed out that evening on Countdown they didn't even have the requisite 60 votes to re-submit the vetoed bill again It was D.O.A. Time for Plan B.

As a result of that fracus - We Lost Cindy Sheehan!

This is what I don't want to see continue. We need to stay in this fight for the long haul, we can't afford to let cynicism and defeatism push us out of the public sphere as an activist force.

I was speaking to US - not them (Congress).

Then buhdydharma said:

Demanding impeachment on Dkos WILL NOT make it happen. To think we don't know that is ridiculous and as I have said, insulting. So instead of thinking all impeachment advocates are idiots, try taking a second to ask what our strategy and thinking actually is!

On this point I actually completely disagree. Demanding that Congress change - via DKOS and other outlets - DID MAKE IT HAPPEN. Oh sure, the Repubs did a lot to help what with the Abramov, The Dukester, The Foley Follies and Maccaca Man. But we helped keep those stories alive and kicking GOP Ass.

It not so much a matter of "demanding" but of making consistent persuasive arguements which gradually change the mind of others progressives, and those people tell two people.. and they tell two people... and eventually you have a groundswell that Congress can't possibly ignore.

BUT... my point remains that although we should absolutely be pushing for Impeachment, since there are literally hundreds of good reasons for it, we Don't have to kick a gift horse like possible Contempt of Congress Charges in the Mouth simply because the issue isn't moving fast enough for our tastes.

Patience is not Appeasement!

There's a huge difference between Impeaching Now... and Impeaching with the intent of Winning in the Senate and Removing Bush (and Cheney) from Office. I know many people don't believe that can be done - but I can tell you one thing, it sure as shit won't get done if we don't even try to visualize it.

To me: Impeachment's Too GOOD For 'em, they need to be Removed.

We may or may not get there, but Removal should be the goal.

There are two primary reasons for this 1) We are not going to end the Iraq Occupation while Bush is still President, he'll go down to the last gasp of his Administration on Jan 19th 2009 still clutching Baghdad in his cold dead fingers and 2) We are not going to send a serious message to all future Presidents that the type of blatant lawlessness and arrogance that this Adminstration has perpetrated Will Not Be Tolerated by this nation or we risk Permenent Damage to The Rule of Law - unless we Impeach, Remove and hopefully Convict!

If we don't reign these fuckers in - and I mean Hard - there is literally nothing to stop it from happening again, and again and again. Just listen to Mitt Romney "I would open Two Guantanemos" - or listen to Guiliani whose practically ready to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran. Or McCain...

"Bomb bomb bomb.. bomb bomb I..."

This shit has to be stopped cold.

These guys are too irresponsible to be trusted with the family car, let alone the country. The Authoritarian Dickheads who've totally hijacked the GOP have to know that they can't get away with it. Ever.

On every other point made by buhdydharma I completely agree.

I don't think or expect that Nancy Pelosi will become President even if somehow my best case scenario does manage to pan out and both Shooter and Bushie are removed. Most likely we'll wind up with a limp Senate-safe "Ford II" regent to ride out the demise of Bushco. It simply wouldn't be appropriate to make this issue into a partisan coup.

That's not what it's about.

(Although in full disclosure it hasn't stopped me from making a "President Pelosi '07" T-Shirt Design just for the fun of it.)

Anyway....

I stand in solidarity with buhdydharma on the point that we need to address these issues wisely and strategically. We need to be strong, DKOS Strong, learn to handle the setbacks and contain ourselves from lashing out at our own side when they're honestly paddling as fast as they can through the morass of obstruction and that our government was designed to be.

A government that works too quickly, works rashly. Isn't that exactly what we saw under the Republican Congress as they passed bills in the middle of the night and decided to stop doing the entire country's business to invervene in the health decisions of one lone florida woman in a hospice?

I was not intending to shout-down those who feel passionate about Impeachment, or to discourage them from speaking out and letting people know how they feel - rather I sought to re-assure them that "Yes, brother - look at what Conyers is doing - and recognize that It is good"

Yeah, verily.

Contempt of Congress is for Today.

Impeachment (of Gonzales) is for Tommorrow (or in the next fwe weeks)

Cheney and Bush have a few months before it's their turn.

Vyan

Cheney's Office Scoffs at National Security Rules - Literally

I really shouldn't be surprised by now - I'm mean honestly. - but this latest revelation coming out of Henry Waxman's commitee that Vice President Dick Cheney has quite literally refused to abide by a Presidential Executive Order regarding the handling of sensitive National Security Information is truly stunning.

And what's really amazing is the reasoning they've provided. Ya see, it's simply the fact that the Vice President's Office - Isn't Part of the Executive Branch - and hence isn't subject to such Executive Orders from the guy down the hall - y'know what's his name - the non-Vice dude.

Say What!?!

This particular claim - that the OVP isn't part of the executive - actually isn't a surpise, because I've heard of Cheney making it before. The theory goes that since the Vice President is also a voting member of The Senate - literally it's President - he exists in the unique position of being in two branches of government at the same time.

So it would naturally follow that he isn't beholden to the rules of either branch then right?

Yeah, ok - sure. That makes perfect sense On The Bizarro Planet!

Regardless of the excuses, what does this mean in practical terms? Well, here's what Paris Hilton's Congressman, Mr. Waxman has to say about it.

Executive Order 12958, "Classified National Security Information," was first issued by President Clinton in 1995. President Bush amended the executive order in March 2003. As amended by President Bush, the executive order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information.

The executive order gives important responsibilities to the Information Security Oversight Office within the National Archives. This office was created in 1978 by Executive Order 12065, "National Security Information," issued by President Carter. Under the Bush executive order, the National Archives, acting through the Information Security Oversight Office, is directed to ensure agency compliance with classified information safeguards by issuing directives to agencies; developing and monitoring security education programs; receiving and responding to reports of security violations; and acting on complaints about the program’s implementation. In addition, the executive order and its implementing directive require executive branch agencies to provide data to the Archives about their classification and declassification activities, which the Archives then compiles to produce annual reports for the President.

The point here is that there are proceedures for classifying and declassifying data. From my own experience working a dozen years for a defense contractor in a classified environment with a Top Secret Clearance with Special Access - I know first hand that violating these procedures can send you on a one-way trip to Leavenworth for Life, because that's exactly what happened to a former co-worker of mine at Northrop named Cavanaugh. He got two - count 'em - TWO Life Sentences. Period. End of story. Bye bye.

Shorter version of Waxman from Thinkprogress.

– Since 2003, Cheney’s office has failed to provide data on its classification and declassification activities as required by Executive Order 12958, which President Bush has amended and endorsed.

– In 2004, Cheney’s office specifically intervened to block an on-site inspection by the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), which is a requirement of the executive order.

The amendment that Bush issued to the executive order - which was done right as the Iraq War began - was to grant the Vice President the authority to classify and declassify national security information in the exact same manner used by the President himself. Hm, ironic no?

The ISOO is essentially the watchdog, their job is to ensure that the system for classifying and declassifying isn't abused.

I mean, it's not like the President would ever use over classification to hide vital information from the public and the congress such as the fact that the Aluminum Tubes story most likely bogus (According to both the State and Energy Depts in the 2002 Iraq NIE), or that he would use classification to shutdown the OPR investigation into the NSA Warrantless Wiretaping, or that the Vice President's Office would Out a Covert CIA Operative to cover up their lies and bullshit or anything.

Nah, that would never happen.

Unless you listen to Waxman.

Your office may have the worst record in the executive branch for safeguarding classified information. As Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald established, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, your former Chief of Staff, leaked the identity of a covert CIA operative to several reporters in June 2003. Mr. Libby was convicted in March of perjury, obstruction of justice, and false statements for lying to a grand jury and to FBI agents in order to conceal his role in the leaking of this information.

The prosecution of Mr. Libby also revealed that you apparently misused the declassification process for political reasons. In July 2003, you reportedly instructed Mr. Libby to leak to the media portions of an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Saddam Hussein’s purported efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Your selective declassification of this information was apparently made outside the formal declassification process and done as part of a damage-control effort you undertook to defend the Administration’s rationale for going to war in Iraq.

In a separate incident, Leandro Aragoncillo, a former aide in your office, pleaded guilty in May 2006 to passing classified information to plotters allegedly trying to overthrow Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Mr. Aragoncillo reportedly disclosed numerous secret and top secret documents to Philippine officials over several years while working in your office.

Given this record, serious questions can be raised about both the legality and the advisability of exempting your office from the rules that apply to all other executive branch officials.

Anyway, since the ISOO has been completely stymied by the OVP from simply doing their job, they've tried writing two seperate letters to VP Counsel David Addington - only to be ignored.

They've gone to the Attorney General, as is authorized by the relevant EO's, asking him to get the Vice President to comply with the President.

(Is it just me or is it totally surreal to actually type those words?)

And you can just be rest assured that Gonzo got right on that.

Yeah, uh huh... any minute now after he's done "Saving the Kids" and covering his own well exposed Behind.

Anyway, apparently because of the letter to Fredo - ole Shooter is kinda pissed. He now says that the Presidential Executive Order should be amended again so that the ISOO and the National Archives no longer have the option of appealing disputes to the AG.

Isn't it great that whenever you get caught in the midst of Treason, uh Completely Fucking Up on matters of National Security er...a minor clerical error where you forgot that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden really aren't the same guy, that you can just send a paper airplane over to the stuttering goober in weird round office down the hall and have him change the rules of the game for you?

(But wait - I thought Cheney wasn't in the "Executive Branch" and if he's not - does that also mean that executive priveledge doesn't apply to him?)

Man, it's must be Good to be The Veep!

"I love my people... I love my people...PULL!"

(Peasant goes flying through the air screaming!)

BLAM!

"Oh, Piss boy -- don't forget to wait for the shake"

Vyan

Lewis Black on Hunting with Cheney

Lewis Black on Hunting with Dick Cheney

Fitz: There's a Cloud Over the Vice Presidency

As noted today on FDL, Patrick Fitzgerald in is rebutal summation for the Scooter Libby Trial finally revealed exactly who his target in this investigation has been.

The Veep.

There is a cloud over the VP. He wrote those columns, he had those meetings, He sent Libby off to the meeting with Judy. Where Plame was discussed. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice. That cloud was there. That cloud is something that we just can't pretend isn't there.

As he said when he announced his indictedment Libby "kicked dust into the umpire's eye" - but why? To protect his boss who had orchestrated the entire outing of CIA Operative Valerie Plame from behind the scenes. To protect Cheney from charges of Treason.

Fitz summation clearly indicates that the prosecution of Libby for his lies to the FBI and Grand Jury is merely an attempt to gain leverage and flip him into finally telling the truth and dropping a dime on Cheney.

First Prosecutor Zeideberg's laid out the case:

On behalf of defense, Wells elected to give opening. He painted different picture, told you about WH conspiracy to scapegoat Libby. Effort to make LIbby into sacrificial lamb so that Karl Rove would go free. You've heard witnesses testify, you've heard witness after witness, you've heard them testify about one or another conversation with Libby about Valerie Wilson during the time period that Libby claimed he had no memory of Wilson's wife. You heard Russert testify, take an oath and say he never spoke to Libby about Wilson's wife. In direct contrast to what Libby claimed. Now did you hear any evidence about a conspiracy to scapegoat Libby? If you draw a blank, it's not because of a problem with your evidence. I bring that to your attention to remind you that evidence is what happened on witness stand and introduced as evidence. Unfulfilled promises from counsel do no constitute evidence. Fitz told you this is case about lying, and I submit that is right. Not a case about bad memory or forgetting. Libby does claim he forgot 9 separate conversations over a 4 week period, but he also invents out of whole cloth, two conversations that never happened. His conversation with Cooper and his conversation with Russert. That's not a matter of forgetting or misremembering, it's lying.

...

When you consider Libby's testimony, there's a pattern of always forgetting about Wilson's wife. He remembers Ari conversation, talk about future, Miami Dolphins, Remembers the Dolphins, doesn't remember talking about Wilson's wife. Remembers talking about NIE with Judy. Not about wife. Remembers talking about declassification with Addinton, but not the wife. Convenient pattern.

Yes, it's highly convenient and highly purposeful. As I stated regarding the Addington Question, Libby was trying to distance himself as being the source of the Plame leak and deliberately avoid legal jeopardy. We don't currently know if had proof, but he strongly suspected that Wilson's Wife could have been covert, and that he might be liable to the IIPA, which Addington had provided him a copy of and his CIA briefer Schmall had advised both Libby and Cheney of the danger of outing a CIA agent.

"I thought there was a very grave danger to leaking the name of a CIA officer," the briefer from Langley, Craig Schmall, said he told Messrs. Cheney and Libby during a morning session at the vice president's residence. "Foreign intelligence services where she served now have the opportunity to investigate everyone whom she had come in contact with. They could be arrested, tortured, or killed."

Following the initial prosecution closing, defense had it's chance - and apparently Ted Wells came off mostly like a used car saleman who knew he was peddeling a grade C lemon.

He claimed Libby was totally innocent.

A person who makes a statement based on a belief or opinion that is inaccurate, making an honest statement that turns out to be inaccurate. An honest belief is one of the most complete defenses because such an honest belief is inconsistent with the intent to commit the alleged offenses.

In this case, it is a deliberate, purposeful, intent to lie.

I'm just going to review chart I used in opening statement. Walk through quickly.

* Gave best good faith recollection
* Innocent mistakes
* No knowledge that Plame was classified [whether or not she was classified is out of bounds]
* Did not push reporters to write about Valerie Wilson
* Did not leak to Robert Novak, Armitage did [brings up Ari, leaking to Pincus], when Judy says, he worked at WINPAC Libby's not a nut, he wouldn't go out and leak false info
* Libby is innocent and had no motive to lie

No motive to lie? Yeah, that's rich. Well's attempted to make the case an issue of Libby's credibility vs Russert's.

Evidence shows Russert could have known about Wilson's wife, you know Gregory was told by Fleischer.

Correct, it is theoretically possible - even though no one in the trial confirmed this theory. But even if it's true, it's only because Libby had previously TOLD FLIESCHER about Wilson's Wife and claimed it was "hush hush" in the first place. Richard Armitage wouldn't have known (or been able to leak to Novak) if Libby hadn't started making inquiries with Marc Grossman. It's Circular Neo-Con Logic. Libby told Fleischer, who told Gregory who might have told somebody at NBC who also might have told managing editor Tim Russert - and then Russert told Libby - except that he didn't. Either way, all oars on this leaky boat point right back to Libby - and Cheney.

In terms of Russert's credibility, we know he filed misleading affadavit with Hogan when he said he was protecting first amendment. He filed misleading affadavit. Ask yourselves, does that comport with what happened in November.

Russert gave misleading account to public. He never tells the public I had been called by FBI and discussed whole conversation freely.

Finally, Russert has memory problems. He forgot a very important telephone call that involved himself involving the Buffalo news. He had to write public letter of apology, where he had to regret for not recollecting something. He was candid at the time, the only thing that shook that confidence was that he had a note. There's no note in this case, you can't have reasonable doubt. You can't decide that's firm and convincing evidence of guilt.

Yeah, it's all that NBC scumbag Russert's fault. He had an axe to grind with Libby and the Bush Administration - cuz he's from - from - NBC! Yeah, that's the ticket - oh and NBC shot JFK too.

At the end of his closing Well's apparently broke down into tears and cried "Give Libby Back to ME!"

So this is all just one sad mistake. Libby simply forgot about 9 different conversations he had about Wilson's Wife working at CIA, and Russert can't be trusted since he's from the evil NBC. It's all so unfair. Oh Pharoah have mercy - Let my Libby go!

Don't sacrifice Scooter LIbby for how you may feel about the war in Iraq or Bush Administration. Treat him the way he deserves to be treated. He worked every day to be NSA for this country. Analyze it fairly. Fight any temptation for your views if you're a Democrat or whatever party. This is a man who has a wife kid. He's been under my protection for the last month. Just give him back. Give him back to me, give him back.

[Wells gets all choked up, crying.]

Comments from the Press Room as reported by FDL:

He did a much better job of the crying thing in the tobacco trial... This time he really didn't sell it

Atter this Well's retreated to the defense table with his hand over his head, never looking up or apparently paying attention while Fitz went into his rebuttal, which he started out on fire, and woke the jury up fully.

Madness. Madness. Outrageous. The govt brought a case about 2 phone calls? And they just want you to speculate? The defense wishes that were so. Saying it, Saying it loudly, pounding the table, doesn't change the facts.

Is this case about 2 reporters, that's it? Is this about a one on one he said she said?

It's a he said he said he said he said she said she said she said he said (shows the graphic of nine people)

Is this the greatest coincidence in the world. That the only person he said he talked to forgot it. It's not one on one, it's all the evidence taken together.

...

No one wished this, but if Tim Russert were run over by a bus and went to that great newsroom in the sky, you could still find plenty of evidence that Libby was not surprised when [claims] he heard this from Russert.

Fitz then goes on to lay out all the other evidence and witnesses who specifically discussed "Wilson's Wife" with Libby, including notes made by the VP on a copy of Wilson's op-ed.

Have they done this sort of thing?

Send an Amb to answer a question?

Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us?

Or did his wife send him on a junket?

Yes, they - the CIA - often do this sort of thing. During the Presidency of George Bush Sr. Dick Cheney himself went on a "junket" with then State Dept official Richard Clark (As documented in his book "Against All Enemies") to convice the Saudi's to allow the U.S. to store equipment and supplies on thier soil as a method to help deter the Soviet Union from invading as they had with Afghanistan. That trip helped put in place the infrastructure that was later fully utilized during the first Gulf War. These weren't questions that Cheney wrote, they were marching orders, they were talking points.

Fitz knows this too.

First bullet–It is not clear who sent Wilson. "Or did his wife write him on a junket" A day or two after [Cheney] writes this, he makes it the number one talking point. The question of who sent Wilson is important, it's the number one bullet. There's something funny. They don't want to talk about the wife.

Or rather, they don't want to be caught talking about Wilson's wife since they know damn well that she could be covert. She is specifically left out of the talking points that Cheney provide Cathie Martin, but when she balks at revealing information from the then still classified NIE -- Libby gets the ball and starts making the contacts Ari Fliescher, whom he's never had lunch with before, and with reporters such as Miller and Cooper.

Conincidence? Hmm, I think not.

At a certain point Fitz starts to get dangerously close to the NOC question.

Importance Remember the others things going on. He had ten conversation with nine people. He's asking Schmall about. He's monitoring Hardball. He's not watching other things. He's remembering Rove telling him. Why is that important? It goes into his brain, bc that's important. VP cuts out column, he makes note on Dowd column. One thing that's really important, Schmall told him, this is a big deal, every intell service, whether innocent or not, they could arrest, torture, kill them. If you're sitting on the beach as a 21 year old, and you say, what you did, that can get people killed. If someone brought to your attention, you could get some people killed, that better be important, certainly NSA to VP in time of war.

At this point Well's was still doing his "oh woah is my defendant" act with his hand over his face. His co-council Jeffries realizes that Fitz is dangerously close to making statements that Valerie Wilson was an undercover agent, which has been ruled inadmissable by the court previously. Sheepishly he requests a sidebar, but not an outright objection since Well's has to do that - and he's still in crying jag-land. The question of whether this would be an appealable issue, which would require a timely objection be made during trial, seems somewhat open to me.

After the sidebar, Fitz continued.

Just so we're perfectly clear, I'm talking about Libby's state of mind. They're saying he's like a 21 year kid not remembering anything after the summer. Schmall did not know about Plame. He's saying that if this happens, you can get people killed. For his state of mind, When you're reading about a front company being exposed. Isn't that important? They want to tell you the wife wasn't important until later. They're saying it was important enough to read on July 14. Important when someone tells you, harm can happen and unimportant when facts prove defendant told a lie.

Go get 'em Fitz. That's when he brought it home.

Is this about a bunch of madmen, two men. Or is about something bigger, Is it about someone to whom Wilson's wife wasn't a person, but an argument. He focused on it June 23, July 8, July 7, focused on it when he talked to Addington. His boss thought it was important. His boss thought it was important. Did his boss forget about the wife/ One of the first thing he wrote, did his wife send him on a junket. They both talked to a briefer about it. You can't believe that 9 witnesses remember 10 conversations the same way. There is no conspiracy. There is no memory problem. He remembers a conversation that did not happen. But forgets all of his. He had a motive to lie, and he lied in a way that exactly matches his motive. You don't forget something on Thursday that you've passed along on Monday and Tueday. You don't forget about important arguments. You know they talked about a cloud over the VP.

DON'T YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ENTITELD TO ANSWERS. If as a result his wife had a job, she worked at CPD, She gets dragged into newspapers. People want to find out was a law broken when people want to know, who did it. What role did Defendant play? What role did VP play? He told you he may have discussed this with VP. Don't you think FBI deserves straight answers?

When you go in that jury room, you common sense will tell you that he made a gamble. He threw sand in the eyes o fthe FBI. He stole the truth of the judicial system. You return guilty You give truth back.

And thus the Prosecution completed it's closing statment. If the jury isn't nullified, it's quite likely IMO that they will return a guilty verdict. Perjury cases can be difficult and usually require at least two persons who can confirm that the defendant made deliberately false statements. This is why President Clitnon could never have been convicted for his statements at the Jones deposition or the Starr Grand Jury because it quite literally was He Said/She Said. But as Fitz pointed out - there are 9 other He's and She's besides Libby and they all agree.

Libby's description of how things occured is simply not possible, it's not a memory lapse - it's a series of lies meant to protect Libby and the VP from criminal liability.

Unfortunately for them that effort has failed. If Libby is convicted he will have to face Fitz on his sentencing. Certainly he will appeal and it's quite possible that he will be pardoned just like Susan McDougal who after enduring years of pressure to LIE from Starr was pardoned by President Clinton

Maybe. Eventually.

In the meanwhile - he'll be in the vice - looking at a possible sentence of 30 years for perjury and obstruction. He'll be in the perfect position to cut a deal. Will he break and give up the Veep or will he hold his ground as Susan did? Some indication in his defense case already indicates he may be ready to bolt, and if he does... All hell's gonna break loose for Cheney.

I've already got the popcorn out, this is going to get good in just a few more days.

Vyan