‘I’m not sure Bush had a choice’

July 8, 2007

One of the curious ambiguities of the commutation controversy is what role, if any, Dick Cheney played in the process. As the recent Washington Post series made clear, not much happens in this White House without the VP’s direct involvement (i.e., dictation), but what did Cheney do about keeping his former chief of staff out of jail?

The Bush gang has been more than a little cagey about the details, which generally hints at the answer. The Post reported this week, “An unanswered question last night was Vice President Cheney’s role in advocating leniency for his former chief of staff and alter ego.”

Reporters tried to get a few more details out of Tony Snow on Tuesday, but came up short. At one point, Snow told the press corps, “I’m sure that the vice president may have expressed an opinion,” but added shortly thereafter, “[Cheney] may have recused himself.”

Michael Isikoff sheds some light on the subject, noting the deliberations in the West Wing.

The president was conflicted. He hated the idea that a loyal aide would serve time. Hanging over his deliberations was Cheney, who had said he was “very disappointed” with the jury’s verdict. Cheney did not directly weigh in with Fielding, but nobody involved had any doubt where he stood. “I’m not sure Bush had a choice,” says one of the advisers. “If he didn’t act, it would have caused a fracture with the vice president.”

Well, we certainly can’t have that, now can we?

Isikoff also added an interesting detail I hadn’t heard before: Bush asked White House Counsel Fred Fielding to help determine whether Libby’s jury made the right call. Far from respecting the verdict, as the White House has been emphasizing all week, the president hoped to find that the jurors came to an unreasonable conclusion, which in turn would make it easier for Bush to intervene.

Fielding came up empty. As Isikoff explained it, he “reluctantly concluded that the jury had reached a reasonable verdict: the evidence was strong that Libby testified falsely about his role in the leak.”

In other words, the president learned just how guilty Libby really was, but commuted the sentence anyway because he “hated the idea that a loyal aide would serve time.”

Well, that and the fact that Libby still had plenty of damaging information about Bush and Cheney that they needed to keep under wraps.

July 8, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Well, that and the fact that Libby still had plenty of damaging information about Bush and Cheney that they needed to keep under wraps.

Feeling “good” or “bad” about Scooter has nothing to do with the decision. It’s all about “me! me! me!” (as it always has been with this moron since the day he popped out of mommy). If Scooter were to talk, Bush and Cheney would be in the dock for committing “high crimes and misdemeanors” and they know it better than anyone else

What did Hillary know and when did she know it? When Bill pardoned over 300+ felons!

**“If he didn’t act, it would have caused a fracture with the vice president.”**

sounds like that white house aide inadvertently confirmed exactly who has primacy in the white house and just how indispensable the president-in-hiding is.

So this exchange from Tony Snow’s Piss-on-the-Press on Tuesday

Q Tony, does the President think that Scooter Libby did, in fact, lie; that a member of the White House staff was, in fact, guilty of these crimes?

MR. SNOW: What he believes is that he was convicted of a jury of his peers. The President was not sitting in as a fact witness on a very long case, and he does think that it’s important to respect what the jury concluded, because the jury really is the group that counts here

represents a bald faced lie? (In so far as an evasion can be termed a lie.)

Ooooo – Mr. CB, you’ve gotten someone’s attention.
The trolls are watching your site, witness the good “buddy” above. Man, the Clintons really make these folk pee in their pants, even more than those bad terrerists out there.
Hey, buddy, BOO! Nationalized Healthcare! BOO! Immigration!
Now go change your pants. Maybe into some brown ones, if you are going to troll the reality-based sites.

Cheney is the real hero to folks like buddy. No attachment to reality, and willing to spout faith-based gibberish to ANY Fox channel talking head. That’s the nice version. Either that or he’s a murdering (our soldiers, that is) psychopath that lies his ass off any time he’s in public.

Yeah, I’m sure that Edgar (as in Edgar Bergan), as he was known to the CIA, still has his hand so far up Commander Codpiece’s ass that you can see his fingertips when the Decider Guy yawns.

“I’m not sure Bush had a choice,” says one of the advisers. “If he didn’t act, it would have caused a fracture with the vice president.”

The monarch reigns, but does not rule, same as in the UK. the actual work of government devolves upon his ministers for that….

As long as we understand that those two are a team, where one goes the other should follow, with impeachement proceedings, to jail – whatever.

At some point, I believe the Republican Party will need to denounce these two or suffer the original sin of why it is that Bush and Cheney are at 26% in the Newsweek polls. That is an undeniable fact that a lot of conservatives voters differ with these loyalist GOP tactics.

I mean, why would the NRO or any other GOP armchair pundits out there think that communting Libby’s sentence or even giving Libby a full pardon would give Bush a bounce in the polls – indeed seeing as how the polls show that about half the conservative voters didn’t like the commute and therefore would not have like a pardon either.

Its kind of hilarious how the Republican pundits got caught defending Bush irregardless of the will of conservative voters – and thus any real conservative values. Not only is the GOP out of touch with its voters, the DC Repug pundits were too. It’s just showcases the myth of the “liberal” media criticism- it’s how Murdock – and the K-Street gang tried to sell conservatives a line too – by putting all this lipstick on the Bush pig. Is Bush really a far-right conservative – Spend like there is no tomorrow, make up new laws, acting immorally, creating bigger government, get deeply involved in nation building – doesn’t look far-right conservative to me.

hum — Spend like there is no tomorrow, make up new laws, acting immorally, creating bigger government, getting deeply involved in nation building – doesn’t look far-right conservatism to me.

“Conservative” is now only the name of a team, and it’s philosophic content has been reduced to that of a foam ‘We’re #1’ finger.

“Conservative” is now only the name of a team, and it’s philosophic content has been reduced to that of a foam ‘We’re #1′ finger.

Comment by Davis X. Machina

although its intended rhetorical message to the rest of us is that of a slightly different finger.

“If he didn’t act, it would have caused a fracture with the vice president.”

So is he really saying that if Bush didn’t play ball the VP would have actively worked against him, or just threatened not to continue pulling the strings of his invisible empire?

The picture of a fearful, cowardly Bush acting against his own best interests just to keep Cheney happy is beyond nauseating. It’s the clearest admission yet that Bush is nothing but an empty suit, incapable of continuing without Papa Bear Cheney to hold his hands and change his diapers for him.

Despicable.

If Cheney did express an opinion to the President, wouldn’t that potentially be an overt act in a possible obstruction of justice, and (I hope) an impeachable offense? Libby lied to protect Cheney, a fact he might be willing to admit to if he were cooling his heels in a federal penitentiary, unless Cheney used his influence over W. to ‘buy’ his freedom.

If I were Cheney, I think I would have just kept my mouth shut and let everyone figure it out for themselves, just in case the truth does come out. One fewer thing to be charged with later.

Of course he had a choice, and he made one.

His other choice? To let the sentence stand, and let Libby appeal to see if he could get the verdict wiped out without a pardon.

For those of us who followed the trial, there was no question that there was an abrupt change in defense strategy, and when the strategy changed, it felt a lot like the defense was just phoning it in. Why? Why would you not do whatever it took to defend yourself, even if it meant you had to call the VP to testify under oath? Was it a case of Libby being afraid Cheney would not only throw Libby under the bus, but run back and forth over him a few times? Was it Cheney being threatened by Libby to take the lid off the whole thing, and Cheney promising that if Libby would just hang tough, Cheney would make sure he never spent a day in prison? Kind of a mutal assured destruction kind of thing?

I believe there are many cases of prosecutions that resulted in injustices – the system is not perfect, and sometimes the wrong people pay a price. And there are cases where people take a wrong turn, pay the price and manage to turn their lives around and help, rather than hurt, society. In my mind, this is what the power of pardon, commutation and clemency are all about. It’s not about sparing someone the indignity of paying the price for a crime for which a jury delivered a verdict, and a judge instituted a sentence that is calculated in accordance with the government’s own guidelines.

This was all about Bush saving his ass, saving Cheney’s ass and preventing justice from going where it needed to go and reaching the ends it needed to reach in order to get to the truth. That the truth might have brought down some in the government – well, that has to do with the choices those people made, likely with the belief that they would get away with it. So far, they have, which is even worse, and what they are continuing to do is make sure that doesn’t change.

Karl Marx famously remarked that historical events occur twice, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. In the case of President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence, Marx had it half-right. Americans are reliving George H.W. Bush’s 1992 Iran-Contra pardons, with the same tragic consequences for the rule of law in the United States. All that’s missing in 2007 is the convenient death of one of the main conspirators.

For the full story, see:
“Like Father, Like Son.”

Bush had “No choice.” Taylor is in an “Untenable position.”

Shorter ReThuglican Party:

“Boo hoo, doing the right thing is just too hard.”

I guess Satan call in the deed on their souls if they’re honest for more than .0005 seconds.

I find it odd that the progressive narrative here is all about “the rule of law” etc. This opens us up to the “Clinton defense”. Anyway lots of people don’t care about, understand, or respond viscerally to the “rule of law”.

I think the issue can be better understood in terms of cowardice. The whole story is one of cowardly deeds:

– Cheney was trying to promote the war in a cowardly and deceitful way — he didn’t want to engage in honest public debate.

– When Wilson unmasked some lies, Cheney and his people were terrified and struck back in a cowardly way, attacking Wilson’s wife. In popular American culture is about the lowest move somebody can make.

– Then Cheney and Rove were afraid they’d get exposed so they tried to hide behind their staff (press secretary, Libby) and cowered in the shadows.

– Libby himself was afraid he’d get in trouble, so he lied (incompetently). He was less cowardly than his bosses, because he was willing to actually answer questions.

– But once he was convicted he was afraid to go to prison. He was a coward and was not willing to take his medicine, so he threatened his bosses with exposure.

– Cheney, Rove and maybe Bush were so afraid of what Libby might say that they caved to his threats and commuted his sentence, in spite of the way they’ve always “acted tough” before in killing and imprisoning people. One serious threat and they folded right up.

– So the real story here is about a bunch of cowards who talk tough and bluster a lot, attack people who are vulnerable (such as covert agents), etc. They act this way because they are weak, cowardly people who can’t stand any kind of personal danger.

– In short, they are the opposite of everything we’ve been taught to admire about good people and good Americans.

– The rule of law is important but isn’t nearly as central to this story as weak, cowardly, bullying people with power. Fitzgerald and Wilson, by contrast, are obviously strong, good Americans.

“[Cheney] may have recused himself.”

I think Snow meant “rescued.”

“[Cheney] may have recused himself.”

Yeah rightTony.
Just like Cheney recused himself when Bush gave him the task of finding a VP in 2000.

Turn off your snow-blowing machine Tony.
Let’s get real:
The only thing Cheney every recused himself from was the Vietnam War.

“I’m not sure Bush had a choice,” says one of the advisers. “If he didn’t act, it would have caused a fracture with the vice president.”

Yes, the same Vice President who’s sage advice has guided Bush to so many triumphs. Gosh, there’s the balanced budget, Social Security reform, the rebirth of New Orleans, the capture of Bin Laden, the war in Iraq, and Immigration, to name a few. Cheney’s insider knowledge of Capitol Hill, plus his surefooted intuition have led the Bush administration to one high water mark after another.

The President’s near-record approval ratings vindicate his wisdom in taking advice from Cheney and for giving him such a free hand. Or, does anyone need further proof that Bush is really as stupid as we think he is?

Remember when, earlier in the investigation, Cheney angrily complained that Libby was taking the fall for others (presumably Rove)?

I’m sure Cheney demanded the commutation; and Bush, it seems clear, is afraid to cross Cheney.

“I’m not sure Bush had a choice,” says one of the advisers.

And here I thought Bush claimed to be “the decider”.

I do not believe their explanation at all. They have lied about everything all along and each time I thought, well now maybe this is the truth, but then it turned out that they had lied. Now I do not believe them at all. I think that this explanation is another big fat lie. For one reason especially I think it is a lie. Recently, in four long articles in The Washington Post newspaper written on Richard B. Cheney, Vice President, it clearly spelled out that there has been and is all this shadow governing by Cheney and power struggle-fighting and such going on. Well, I do not think Bush could have done anything to keep Cheney from fracturing(odd was to explain it) from him since Cheney has not ever been working with Bush, but against him. Therefore, the big fat lie, again.

Comments are closed.