|
Copies of handwritten notes by Vice President Dick Cheney,
introduced at
trial by defense attorneys for former White House staffer I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, would appear to implicate George W. Bush in the Plame CIA Leak
case.
Bush has long maintained that he was unaware of attacks by any
member of
his administration against [former ambassador Joseph] Wilson. The
ex-envoy's
stinging rebukes of the administration's use of pre-war Iraq
intelligence
led Libby and other White House officials to leak Wilson's wife's
covert CIA
status to reporters in July 2003 in an act of retaliation.
But Cheney's notes, which were introduced into evidence Tuesday
during
Libby's perjury and obstruction-of-justice trial, call into question
the
truthfulness of President Bush's vehement denials about his prior
knowledge
of the attacks against Wilson. The revelation that Bush may have known
all
along that there was an effort by members of his office to discredit
the
former ambassador begs the question: Was the president also aware that
senior members of his administration compromised Valerie Plame's
undercover
role with the CIA?
Further, the highly explicit nature of Cheney's comments not only
hints
at a rift between Cheney and Bush over what Cheney felt was the
scapegoating
of Libby, but also raises serious questions about potentially criminal
actions by Bush. If Bush did indeed play an active role in encouraging
Libby
to take the fall to protect Karl Rove, as Libby's lawyers articulated
in
their opening statements, then that could be viewed as criminal
involvement
by Bush.
Last week, Libby's attorney Theodore Wells made a stunning
pronouncement
during opening statements of Libby's trial. He claimed that the White
House
had made Libby a scapegoat for the leak to protect Karl Rove - Bush's
political adviser and "right-hand man."
"Mr. Libby, you will learn, went to the vice president of the
United
States and met with the vice president in private. Mr. Libby said to
the
vice president, 'I think the White House ... is trying to set me up.
People
in the White House want me to be a scapegoat,'" said Wells.
Cheney's notes seem to help bolster Wells's defense strategy.
Libby's
defense team first discussed the notes - written by Cheney in September
2003
for White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan - during opening
statements
last week. Wells said Cheney had written "not going to protect one
staffer
and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his head in the meat
grinder
because of incompetence of others": a reference to Libby being asked to
deal
with the media and vociferously rebut Wilson's allegations that the
Bush
administration knowingly "twisted" intelligence to win support for the
war
in Iraq.
However, when Cheney wrote the notes, he had originally written "this
Pres." instead of "that was."
During cross-examination Tuesday morning, David Addington was asked
specific questions about Cheney's notes and the reference to President
Bush.
Addington, former counsel to the vice president, was named Cheney's
chief of
staff - a position Libby had held before resigning.
"Can you make out what's crossed out, Mr. Addington?" Wells asked,
according
to a copy of the transcript of Tuesday's court proceedings.
"It says 'the guy' and then it says, 'this Pres.' and then that is
scratched through," Addington said.
"OK," Wells said. "Let's start again. 'Not going to protect one
staffer
and sacrifice the guy ...' and then what's scratched through?" Wells
asked
Addington again, attempting to establish that Cheney had originally
written
that President Bush personally asked Libby to beat back Wilson's
criticisms.
"T-h-i-s space P-r-e-s," Addington said, spelling out the words. "And
then it's got a scratch-through."
"So it looks like 'this Pres.?'" Wells asked again.
"Yes sir," Addington said.
Thus, Cheney's notes would have read "not going to protect one
staffer
and sacrifice the guy this Pres. asked to stick his head in the meat
grinder
because of the incompetence of others." The words "this Pres." were
crossed
out and replaced with "that was," but are still clearly legible in the
document.
The reference to "the meat grinder" was understood to be the
Washington
press corps, Wells said. The "protect one staffer" reference, Wells
said,
was White House Political Adviser Karl Rove, whose own role in the leak
and
the attacks on Wilson are well documented.
Furthermore, Cheney, in his directive to McClellan that day in
September
2003, wrote that the White House spokesman needed to immediately "call
out
to key press saying the same thing about Scooter as Karl."
McClellan had publicly stated in September 2003 that Rove was not
culpable in the leak of Valerie Plame's covert CIA identity, nor was he
involved in a campaign to discredit her husband, but McClellan did not
say
anything to the media that exonerated Libby, which led Cheney to write
the
note. A couple of weeks later, in October 2003, McClellan told members
of
the media that it was "ridiculous" for them to suggest Libby and Rove
were
involved in the leak, because he received personal assurances from both
men
that they had nothing to do with it.
Moreover, Wells insinuated Tuesday that Cheney's note [seemingly]
implicating President Bush in the discrediting of Wilson was one of the
250
pages of emails and documents the White House failed to turn over to
investigators who had been probing the leak for more than two years.
Wells insinuated that Cheney's note, because it contained a
reference to "this Pres." may have been an explosive piece of evidence that Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales, who at the time of the leak was White House
counsel, withheld from investigators, citing executive privilege.
Addington
told Wells that when subpoenas were first issued by the Justice
Department
in the fall of 2003, demanding documents and emails relating to Wilson
and
Plame be preserved, he was given Cheney's notes and immediately
recognized
the importance of what the vice president had written. Addington said
he
immediately entered into a "discussion" with Gonzales and Terry
O'Donnell,
Cheney's counsel, about the note, but Addington did not say whether it
was
turned over to investigators in the early days of the probe.
Wells's line of questioning is an attempt to shift the blame for
the
leak squarely onto the shoulders of the White House - a tactic aimed at
confusing the jury - and will likely unravel because it has nothing to
do
with the perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges at the heart of the
case
against Libby. Still, Tuesday's testimony implicating President Bush
may be
the most important fact that has emerged from the trial thus far.
Addington revealed during his testimony Monday that in June 2003
there
were internal discussions - involving President Bush and Vice President
Cheney - about declassifying for specific reporters a portion of the
highly
classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate as a way to
counter
Wilson's criticisms against the administration. That portion
purportedly
showed that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger to use
for
building an atomic bomb - a claim that Wilson had debunked when he
personally traveled to Niger to investigate it a year earlier.
In late June or early July 2003, "a question was asked of me - by
Scooter Libby: Does the president have authority to declassify
information?" Addington told jurors Monday, in response to a question by defense
attorney
William Jeffress. "And the answer I gave was, 'Of course, yes. It's
clear
the president has the authority to determine what constitutes a
national
security secret and who can have access to it.'"
President Bush signed an executive order in 2003 authorizing Cheney
to
declassify certain intelligence documents. The order was signed on
March 23,
four days after the start of the Iraq War and two weeks after Wilson
first
appeared on the administration's radar.
* * * * *
Truthout will publish a follow-up to this story, with opinions from
legal experts on possible implications of these latest developments for
the
White House. |