Posted on 01/25/2007 8:03:10 AM PST by STARWISE
Back in 2001, just before Sept. 11, I wrote a story for National Review about the Bush White House’s impressive success in preventing leaks. Compared to his father’s team, I wrote, George W. Bush had put together a staff that was extraordinarily disciplined and showed a “remarkable cohesiveness.”
Fast-forward to the federal courthouse in Washington on Tuesday. Opening arguments were under way in the perjury and obstruction of justice trial of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Any Bush White House cohesiveness, remarkable or otherwise, blew up before the public’s eyes as Libby attorney Ted Wells gave the jury Libby’s view of the case.
The Bush White House screwed up with the famous, or infamous, “16 words” episode in the 2003 State of the Union address and then, later, with the leak of former CIA employee Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity, Wells told the jury.
In the controversy that followed, the political and legal heat was on, and the White House was desperate to protect political guru Karl Rove, whom former ambassador Joseph Wilson was pointing to as the culprit in the case.
But somebody had to take the blame. And that somebody was Lewis Libby, who would be offered up to the angry press and prosecutors to take the fall for the White House’s incompetence.
Now mind you, this was not some left-wing blogger’s theory of the case. It was Lewis Libby’s.
“I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected,” Libby said, as quoted by Wells.
The scene in the courtroom was an ugly picture of an administration in some degree of disarray — the vice president’s former top aide, under indictment, swinging wildly at the president’s top political adviser in the most public of forums.
“[Mr. Libby] was concerned about being the scapegoat,” Wells told the jury. “Mr. Libby said to the vice president, ‘People in the White House are trying to set me up, people in the White House are trying to make me a scapegoat.’”
Then Wells moved in on the target. “People in the White House are trying to protect a man named Karl Rove, the president’s right-hand man.”
Wells said he will present a note written by Dick Cheney himself about a conversation with Libby. In part, the note says, “Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.”
Wells continued: “The person to be protected was Karl Rove … Karl Rove was President Bush’s right-hand person. His fate was important to the Republican Party if they were going to stay in office. He had to be protected … The person to be sacrificed was Scooter Libby.”
Libby’s new defense — a surprise, even for people who followed the case — was, to put it mildly, not a good sign for the Bush administration.
To have a former top official engaged in a running battle with his old colleagues — and, by extension, with the president himself — is an embarrassing spectacle.
Up until now, most observers expected Libby to mount a simple “memory” defense, arguing that he was so busy with so many important things during the time of the Plame leak that he simply did not remember all the contacts he had had with reporters. Therefore, he did not commit perjury but instead simply forgot a few details.
Libby still argues that, of course, but he has also decided to lob a few grenades at the White House.
The ironic thing about this is that, throughout the Plame matter, the most virulent of Bush critics have viewed the Bush White House as a finely tuned conspiracy machine, with officials carefully directing a plot to smear Joseph and Valerie Plame Wilson.
But the picture emerging in the Libby trial is of something entirely different: a White House divided, at cross-purposes, and filled with intrigue.
At the end of my 2001 article, I wrote that the Bush operation would certainly encounter some bumps in the road, but “don’t look for a major breakdown.”
As they say on the Hill, I would now like to revise and extend my remarks.
What has emerged recently is a view of the Bush administration not encountering bumps in the road but rather heading toward a head-on collision — with itself.
And it comes at a time when the president’s job rating is sitting in the low 30s, when he is facing a revolt among Republicans in the Senate over his troop-surge proposal in Iraq, and when he has just lost big in midterm elections.
Of course, it’s when things are going badly that finger-pointing and backside-covering take over in a White House (or any other organization, for that matter.)
From the very beginning, George W. Bush worked hard to avoid the sort of problem that is now facing his administration in the Libby matter.
But it happened anyway. And now, there’s not much the president can do about it.
Scooter ..
BUUUULLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSHIIIIIPPPPPPPPPP
Why is this case even relevent?
IF Wells is going to use some anti Bush/ Rove sentiment to get Libby off, that is unfortunate. Based on teh charges against Libby, it's impossible to see how the White House could have sacrificed Libby to protect Rove. Libby is charged with not "remembering" that he told something to a couple of reporters. How could the WH have orchestrated that and how would it protect Rove?
The only WH plan would have required that Libby was told to contact the reporters, spread a story, and to deny it - all so Rove wouldn't be involved. I don't think Wells' opening contained any such charge.
The Republicans couldn't handle any of Clinton's real scandals.
Okay...this is JUST great. Should we believe Scooter and his lawyer?
OR, is this just a way to take more people down with him??
Very confounding ... mystifying ..
Hard to figure where Libby wins anything by taking this tac...
Re-posting a point from steve .. thank you, Steve.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Keep in mind that Libby's lawyers have been hired to defend Libby, not Bush, Rove, Cheney, or the administration's policy in Iraq. Some of us think that the defense lawyers are assuming the jury is laden with anti-Bush people and are therefore trying to drive a wedge between Libby and the adminstration.
If they can portray Libby as a victim or scapegoat of the Bush administration, an anti-Bush jury might be more likely to exonerate Libby. The lawyers' claims don't even need to be true to be effective as a courtroom tactic."
The article only had "part" of the note...and I couldn't really make sense of it.
It certainly is astonishing that the entire investigation was not immediately terminated the moment the Special Counsel learned that Armitage was the person who broke the Plame info to the press.
This case seems like nothing more than a prosecutor wanting to "make his bones" (as Clintoon would put it) in a high profile case.
If only Patrick "Inspector Javert" Fitzgerald could be put on the scent of the Sandy Burglar case, he might have a useful function.
Very true...and thank you Steve...
So...for Libby to get off, though...a lot of "untruths" to feed the Bush haters is fed to the jury.
Well..all I can say is, it better work, because if Libby gets convicted, by misrepresting what REALLY was going on...then I hope he goes away for a LONG TIME!
"Keep in mind that Libby's lawyers have been hired to defend Libby, not Bush, Rove, Cheney, or the administration's policy in Iraq. Some of us think that the defense lawyers are assuming the jury is laden with anti-Bush people and are therefore trying to drive a wedge between Libby and the adminstration.
If they can portray Libby as a victim or scapegoat of the Bush administration, an anti-Bush jury might be more likely to exonerate Libby. The lawyers' claims don't even need to be true to be effective as a courtroom tactic."
BINGO. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING. It is the only way that a Republican could hope to get anything approaching justice with a DC jury. Nobody knew Libby. But Rove has been demonized by the Left since Bush won. This is a very smart strategy by the defense. Nothing more.
OH OH! I can answer that one! George Bush wants to steal your grandmothers dog food and throw her out into the street, so that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove can run her over in an evil SUV. He also want's to steal all the oil and give it to his ultra rich friends so they can gouge you at the pump.
Meanwhile Sandy Berger walks free.. What's wrong with this picture?
The excerpt was included in order to precondition the audience.
The same sentence could be used in context with several alternative purposes.
For one thing, early on in the witch hunt the WH was assuring us that they intended to comply fully and to support an honest investigation. The words cited would fit into that scenario as well as an alleged scapegoating.
Also, we are looking at the words of a hired lawyer, not Libby, interesting to see what his testimony will be and how similar it is to this supporting fire.
Judging from your screen name, I am assuming you are right...and that is good.
BUT, that doesn't really make me feel better, because I think the "goal" of this whole Joe Wilson/Niger thing was an attempt to "bring down" the Bush Administration...and it looks like, even if Libby is the "biggest fish" they could get in court...
They will at least accomplish getting the Bush White House portrayed in a very bad (probably false) light.
That seems to be exactly what Wells is doing. He's got a DC jury, presumably very unsympathetic to the admininstration and he's using that antipathy to make Scooter the victim in the case. The thing is, Scooter IS the victim here...but he's the victim of an over-zealous highly partisan and ambitious special prosecutor, not Karl Rove.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.