march 7th new york times opinion highlights. . .

finally catching up now — back
from europe, and some vacation. . .

here is some of the analysis of
the import of the libby conviction,
from the new york times opinion page:

“. . . . .the case provided a look at the methodical
way that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Libby, Karl Rove and
others in the Bush inner circle set out to
discredit Ms. Wilson’s husband, Joseph Wilson
IV. Mr. Wilson, a career diplomat, was sent by
the State Department in 2002 to check out a
British intelligence report that Iraq had tried
to buy uranium from the government of Niger for
a secret nuclear weapons program. In his 2003
State of the Union address, Mr. Bush said: ‘The
British government has learned that Saddam
Hussein recently sought significant
quantities of uranium from Africa. . .’

The specter of a nuclear-armed Iraq was
central to Mr. Bush’s case for rushing
to war. So, the trial testimony showed,
Mr. Cheney orchestrated an assault on Mr.
Wilson’s credibility with the help of Mr.
Libby and others. They whispered to journalists
that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the C.I.A.
and that nepotism was the reason he had
been chosen for the trip.

That is what we know from the Libby trial,
and it is some of the clearest evidence yet
that this administration did not get duped
by faulty intelligence; at the very least,
it cherry-picked and hyped intelligence
to justify the war. What Mr. Wilson found,
and subsequent investigations confirmed, was
that there was one trip in 1999 — not
‘recently,’ but four years before Mr. Bush’s
statement — by an Iraqi official to Niger
and that during that trip, uranium was
never discussed. . .

One of the most senior officials in the
White House, Lewis Libby, the chief of
staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, was
caught lying to the F.B.I. He appears to
have been trying to cover up a smear
campaign that was orchestrated by his
boss against the first person to unmask
one of the many untruths that President
Bush used to justify invading Iraq. . .“

it is high time that congress convene
hearings into what cheney knew — what
he ordered — and whom he used to get it done.

we all know, from the trial evidence, that
scooter libby’s defining characteristic
is loyalty — fealty — never, ever was he
a “rogue” agent cheney cut loose. . .

no, he was, almost certainly, and
according to special prosecutor patrick
fitzgerald, the most loyal, and dutiful,
and careful of hand-servants to the
vice president. . .

so — how much of this sordid mess did
dick cheney personally oversee/order/direct?

we, the people, are owed an answer.

an answer in small words, and in
short sentences. from his own mouth.

you are our servant, mr.
cheney — not the other way around. . .

m.s.m. — how long until. . .

how long until. . .

these small rumblings rise,
rise to a tidal-wave force roar. . .

“. . .From the start, the case was only
marginally about Libby. What was really
on trial was the whole culture of an
Administration that treated the truth as
a relative virtue, as something it could
take or leave as it needed. Everyone knows
now that Bush and Cheney took the country
into a deadly, costly and open-ended war on
flimsy evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, Congress went along. And yes, the public
on balance supported it. But no one was more
responsible than the Vice President for pushing
the limits of the prewar intelligence that did
all the convincing. And when former ambassador
Joseph Wilson questioned the credibility of
that intelligence — and the motives that
helped polish it — it was Cheney who led
the fight to bring him down. . .“

there’s more:

“. . .friends and advisers in the fall of 2002
described Cheney as nothing less than the engine
of the Administration. ‘There’s no way in which he
is not driving the train on this,’ said one, referring
to Cheney’s role in pushing Bush and the Administration
inexorably toward an invasion of Iraq. . . It’s reflective
not so much of Cheney’s direct influence on the
President as it is of his influence on — his dominance
of — the decision-making process. . . In other words,
Cheney had so rigged the process that important
decisions were foregone conclusions, ones that had
been reached by the Vice President well in advance. . .“

how long, now, indeed?

how long until we, the
people, demand that our
congress go get us the
answers we are owed from
this — the most powerful, and
most secretive — vice presidents
in the republic’s history?

how long?

okay. stick a fork in him.

four out of five ain’t too bad.

who’s next?

dick cheney.

nicholas kristof asks after the jackson hole note. . .

yet another compelling new york
times piece, filed this morning. . .

the only disappointment here is that
it has taken this long to get the hard-
driving questioning out of the m.s.m.
on this — clearly a matter of historic,
and constitutional, moment:

Bush and Cheney Owe an Explanation
February 21, 2007

By Nicholas D. Kristof

“. . .Since June 9 [2003] was right when there was a bustle of activitiy in the White House on this issue, you have to wonder whether Bush’s expression of concern or embarrassment wasn’t behind Cheney and Libby’s actions. Or it’s also plausible that Cheney, who was hot under the collar about it, briefed Bush and Bush promptly forgot. But we do have to know which version is the truth. If Bush was behind the furor, that is something the American people deserve to know. . .

The other item that raises questions about Bush is the note from Cheney that suggests that it was “the Pres.” who asked Libby to take on the Joe Wilson issue with the press. After writing “the Pres.” Cheney crossed out those words and simply used the passive, saying that Libby “was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder.” But it sure looks as if he started to say that it was Bush that did so. Why? Was Bush behind the campaign against Wilson?

We just don’t know the answers to these questions, and there’s not much point speculating. But when serious questions are raised about the integrity of the White House, the President and Vice President owe us answers. . .”