Oct 24 2005

NY Times Cheney Bombshell a Dud

Published by at 11:19 pm under All General Discussions,Plame Game

I see the democrat underground is here. Well, we welcome all types. 😉

And yes, I did misread the dates – see below. If you want to comment on the substance of my argument, feel free. Keep it clean and civil and I will post your comments. I doubt you’ll want to read much here. To say we do not see eye to eye is an understatement. Anyway, you all get one free gloat, on me!

If anything is coming clear from the end game in the Plame affair it is the tragically pathetic fantasizing by the media as the Plame case against the Bush administration falls apart in front of their eyes. The more we learn (like there will be no indictments for outing Valerie’s ‘cover’) the more dramatic and far fetched the liberal media gets in their grasping attempts to salvage their fantasies. They have to reach farther and farther into pure silliness to keep the facade from crashing down on them.

Earlier today the news came out that Fitzgerald had begun to look into the Niger Forgeries. Well, the only people to worry about the Niger forgeries are Valerie and Joe Wilson because they sourced all the early reporting which claims Bush went to war using intelligence (documents) Wilson had proved to be forgeries. The Kristof and Pincus articles sourced by the Wilsons include claims about the forgeries that only people who had seen them, or know classified information about them, could know (dates and names which did not match). Bush and his administration had lots of other intel on Saddam and his attempts to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program. So these forgeries never hurt the case for war either way.

Beyond that, though, Wilson’s outrage at these supposed forgeries he discovered on his March 2002 trip never surfaced during Bush’s speech to the UN in the fall of 2002, his speech to Congress and their vote to support military action in the fall of 2002, or the Powell speech to the security council. No, not once during the build up of the war did Wilson feel concerned that the march to war was based on forgeries. It wasn’t until we were in Iraq and the President’s SOTU speech that Wilson got all worked up about forgeries.

All this has been rationalized by the lunatic left as evidence Bush and Cheney forged the documents to support the case for war! The more the Plame Game falls apart the stranger the theories get. So now the NY Times has realized that Cheney was interested in who could possibly be claiming Bush went to war based on forgeries Bush knew where forgeries! Kristof made the claim May 6th, which everyone who knows anything about this topic caused the WH to find out who was the ex-ambassador who went to Niger.

Somehow this obvious reaction is now evidence Cheney told Libby about the Wilsons (but didn’t?)…

Notes of the previously undisclosed conversation between Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney on June 12, 2003, appear to differ from Mr. Libby’s testimony to a federal grand jury that he initially learned about the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, from journalists, the lawyers said.

Except Miller met with Libby on June 23rd and discussed the same matter. Does anyone at the NY Times READ the NY Times? Doh – see below!


Sorry folks, need to stop doing these posts past midnight! Yep, June 23rd is after June 12th (which looked like July 12th last night!). In any event, I still hold that Cheney knowing about Wilson is not a big surprise since Wilson himself reminds us that his shopping of the story prior to June 12th had caused lots and lots of calls to the administration by reporters trying to confirm Joe’s claims about his CIA trip (hat tip Rick Moran):

So I spoke to a number of reporters over the ensuing months. Each time they asked the White House or the State Department about it, they would feign ignorance. I became even more convinced that I was going to have to tell the story myself.

Thanks for heads up – from the left!

6 responses so far

6 Responses to “NY Times Cheney Bombshell a Dud”

  1. patch says:

    Since when is it a criminal conspiracy for the Vice-President to talk to his Chief of Staff?

    And, why should they be required to remember every conversation and its content?

  2. […] Of course, this story dropped before any coordinated defense could be mounted. Wingnuts have been forced to improvise reasons why one shouldn’t believe this story – and, as usual when they go off script, the results are not pretty. Behold: Somehow this obvious reaction is now evidence Cheney told Libby about the Wilsons (but didn’t?)… […]

  3. Zorro says:

    Let me simply ask you this. If there are indicments, will you stand on principle and support the indicments? Or will you join the chorus of conservatives who believe that the GOP is above the law? I believe that any offical who breaks the law, regardless of party, should be sent up the river. Do you believe this? Or does the law only apply to liberals?

    Remember, it’s not the sex, it’s the lying.

  4. AJStrata says:

    Zorro, thanks for stopping by and posting a reasonable question. To answer your question, I will admit someone has been indicted. That still means innocent until proven guilty (the same approach I took with Clinton). So if you are asking me if I will admit a charge has been made – OK. But that is not going to buy you much. I will possibly also argue the charge is irrelevant or flawed and they should be acquitted. These are all laws my friend. False and erroneous charges have been made before.

    I think what you are asking is will he be guilty. So what I want from you will be a promise to uphold the innocence of anyone indicted until they are proven guilty by a court of law.

    Think you can handle that? Also, if the indictments come out against Plame, Wilson or other CIA people, I would expect you to also accept the fact Bush and Co. did nothing wrong.

    What I believe is you need to not worry about liberals and cons and let the process work as it is supposed to.

  5. Zorro says:

    In response to your question, I don’t believe that it is the CIA, Plame, oir Wilson that is under investigation.

    As for innocent until proven guitly, that is true. However, Karl Rove has a documented histroy of dirty, borderline illegal political tricks, including bugging his own office and telling the FBI it was done by his opponent. It certianly fits a pattern.

    I would argue that the charge is far from irrelevant. If we had found WMDs in Iraq (we found some helium trucks, old dud shells from the 80’s, and botulinum in some guy’s freezer), if the Niger allegations had been true, and if the leak did not also include Brewster Jennings & Associates, a CIA front group which has now been exposed, jeapordizing our nation’s ability to track WMDs (Valerie Plame’s specialty) and putting peoples’ lives at risk, then it would be irrelevant.

    I want justice, not partisanship. I want transparent government, and I want corrupt officials to be punished. At the very least, the responsible parties should be fired for such a sleazy trick, sliming a political opponent’s wife.

  6. AJStrata says:


    I could have guessed what you think, however I must point out that there is a strong case against Plame and the CIA for leaking classified information, and Wilson for perjury and obstruction of justice. I have lots of posts on the subject under the category Plame Game – feel free to delve into it.

    Your caricature of Rove is highly subjective – like Carville and Begala were saints?? Too funny. The leak, important or not, does not meet the statute of the law. Everyone agrees there will be no indictments on that. And if Valerie was so concerned, she should have stopped Joe from going public with his lies. The minute he did that every intelligence agency in the world had Valerie in their sites. If Novak could do it then most spy agencies could do it. So your concern is obvioulsy tilted one way.

    Finally, between Kristof and the Senate investigation it is clear Kristof used both Joe and Valerie has his sources in his May 6th article. Joe’s claims needed to be backed up – including his lies about discovering the Niger documents were forgeris. There were only four people at the debreifing and only Valerie would back up the story about the forgeries. And to be a credible second source as wife – she would have to spill the beans to the NYTimes vetting process she was CIA and there at the debreifing (which she was).

    While understand your vague and unsubstantiated claims – it would carry more weight with me if there was something tangible there.

    We shall see. I am more than willing to admit all my investigating and speculation is wrong. Personally, if Libby and Rove are convicted then they most likely deserved it. While the possibility this is the case exists – the probability is actually incredibly low.

    Thanks for commenting. You are always welcomed here to keep me honest and challenge my assessments.