Until the strike on Syria was announced this evening (I guess I'm just an old-fashioned guy but I sure would like to have seen a Congressional authorization of force), the big news of the day was President Trump's pardon of former VP Dick Cheney aide Scooter Libby, convicted in 2007 for making a false statement during the Valerie Plame investigation.
It’s not widely recognized that the current situation is the
second
time James Comey has launched a special counsel at a Republican
administration. The first was during the GW Bush administration. When
Joe Wilson first published his “16 Words” op-ed in the New York Times,
and then his wife, Valerie Plame (that’s in Joe Wilson & Valerie
Plame, the “
we’re not anti-semites, we just don’t want Jews running everything”
couple), was outed to Bob Novak by an administration source as a CIA
agent, and AG Ashcroft recused himself (sound familiar?), his deputy
Comey saw an opportunity to get his arch-nemesis Dick Cheney.
Comey
and Cheney were at crosshairs because of their differing views on the
War on Terror and the role of the CIA/FBI and surveillance (I was closer to Comey than Cheney on the substance of their disagreement). Comey, convinced the source of the leak about Plame was Cheney or one of his
staff, decided he could use the situation to nail the Veep, and so appointed his friend Patrick Fitzgerald (who was also
godfather to Comey’s daughter) as special counsel and set him loose.
Unfortunately within a couple of weeks, Fitzgerald knew the source of the leak was Richard Armitage. The problem was Armitage worked for Secretary of State Colin
Powell, not Cheney. Moreover, Armitage and Powell were also opposed to Cheney's take on the War on Terror (and it appears no law was broken by the Armitage
disclosure, as he was unaware that she may have been an undercover agent, though even her actual status remains in dispute). So instead of winding up his investigation, Fitzgerald
asked Armitage not to disclose his role and proceeded to spend the next
year setting perjury traps for Cheney and his staff, finally nabbing Libby. I would be shocked
if Fitzgerald acted on his own without consulting his supervisor, James
Comey.
For more background on the Comey/Cheney dispute read this
this 2007 post from Tom Maguire who covered the investigation and trial extensively. He describes Fitzgerald as a
torpedo dropped in the water by Comey “
towards the USS Cheney”
Whether you can objectively determine whether Libby actually committed perjury is difficult. The question centered around one of those who heard what from whom and when controversies in Libby's various conversations with media personalities like Tim Russert. For what it's worth, one of the chief prosecution witnesses, Judith Miller, has since recanted her testimony, stating she was misled by the prosecutors and today
released a statement called Libby's pardon "long overdue". Of course, getting a conviction was not difficult with a DC jury when the defendant is an aide to an unpopular Vice-President.
That’s why Trump is pardoning Libby. It’s a direct rebuke of Comey’s sleazy machinations, which the sitting President has direct experience with. After all, Comey admitted he told the president on three occasions he was not under investigation, yet at the same time was leaking unfavorable takes on the Chief Executive to the New York Times, but not leaking the accurate news that the president was not under investigation. He was also party to using the Steele Dossier, cooked up by the Clinton campaign in collusion with Russian intelligence in order to convince a FISA Court (which was not fully informed of the Clinton connection) to issue a surveillance authorization on Carter Page which would give the government broad access to the Trump campaign. And then, to top it off, when Comey briefed the incoming president on the Steele Dossier he didn't tell him of the Clinton campaign involvement!
It is also likely that another motive for the pardon is to send a message to Trump associates that he stands ready to pardon them. I hope he does not follow through on that. Or at least, that he makes distinctions among them. There is a difference between a Michael Flynn, caught in the same type of dubious perjury trap as Scooter Libby, and Paul Manafort, who may have illegally enriched himself through bank and tax fraud.
In retrospect the
Wilson/Plame story is also a precursor to today's Russian collusion
story in the lack of mainstream media interest in anything that would
interfere with the preferred narrative.
For instance, I was
always struck that no one in the media asked
why Joe Wilson waited to make his revelation only in July 2003,
after the initial conventional of the war was over and Saddam Hussein deposed,
since he’d made his Africa trip more than a year earlier.
Let’s look at the timeline:
Joe
Wilson is sent by the CIA to West Africa in February 2002 to
investigate allegations that Saddam is trying to buy yellowcake uranium
from Niger. Oddly, it appears the CIA never asked him to sign a
nondisclosure agreement.
On October 11, 2002, the Senate voted to
authorize the President to use force in Iraq. Half of the Senate
Democrats, including Biden, Kerry, and Clinton, supported the
authorization.
On January 28, 2003, President Bush gave the speech
that later became known as the “16 Words” speech because of his
reference to Saddam’s efforts to obtain yellowcake in Africa.
The Iraq War began on March 20, 2003.
Joe Wilson’s op-ed in the NY Times appeared on July 6, 2003.
As to the substance of Wilson's accusation that Bush lied about yellowcake in his January speech
here is
the Washington Post reporting in July 2004 on a bipartisan Senate
Intelligence Committee report on the matter (this is before the WaPo
publicly announced its aspiration to smother democracy in darkness).
From the article:
Wilson’s assertions — both about
what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the
information — were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate
intelligence committee report.
In any event,
why, if Wilson thought Bush had a “lack of candor” in his January 28 speech
did he not raise his concerns before the start of the invasion in March?
I think it is because of Wilson’s own views about Saddam’s capabilities,
and internal Democratic party politics.
Specifically, in a talk
Wilson gave in the fall of 2002 to an audience in DC (I listened to a
recording of it years ago, and am trying to find it on the internet once
again),
he believed Saddam had significant chemical and biological
warfare capabilities. In fact, he opposed the invasion for two reasons.
First, he thought the US would suffer significant casualties because of
Saddam’s WMD capabilities, and second, he didn’t want American “boys and
girls” dying on behalf of Israel (I don’t think he was referring
to Israeli Arabs when he was making that statement).
Further,
Wilson was interested in Democrats being successful in the 2004 election cycle. If he went public with his concerns prior to the
invasion, it would have put a lot of public pressure on Clinton, Kerry,
and Biden to declare whether they would change their authorization vote
and demand another vote. Since none of them knew how the war would turn
out and whether WMD would be found that would have put them in an
untenable position with a lot of political risk, a position none of them wanted to be in.
It was only politically safe for Wilson to make
his accusations after the invasion when little WMD, and no nuclear
material, was found.
The other important element in the specific
timing of publications by the New York Times was that it created a media
frenzy right in the middle of George Bush’s trip to sub-Saharan Africa.
Since the media narrative was that Bush was a racist, there was a need
to divert attention from his obvious concern about, and commitment to,
improving conditions in Africa. The Wilson story also helped to
overshadow President Bush’s speech at Goree Island in Senegal,
the most remarkable speech by an American president on race and slavery since Lincoln’s Second Inaugural.
Joe
Wilson wasn’t the only one in his family concerned about Jews. In 2017,
Valerie Plame’s long-standing history of similar views finally became
public over her endorsing tweet of an article entitled “
America’s Jews
are driving America’s wars”, published on a website that also carried
articles like “
It’s time to rethink David Duke”.
There are two
interesting aspects of the 2017 tweet, which, once again, was not an
aberration by Plame. First, it led to her resignation the
Board of the Ploughshares Foundation. Ploughshares is the leftist
foundation that worked with the Obama Administration to create what Ben Rhoades, President Obama’s right
hand man on the Iran Nuclear Deal, called the “
echo chamber”, a coordinated effort to help sway public
opinion, an effort that included accusations of dual loyalty by American
Jews.
Secondly, the Wilson/Plame worldview also obscured
differences between American neo-cons and Israel on foreign policy.
During the run up to the Iraq War the Sharon government in Israel told
the Bush Administration that it thought Saddam was successfully
contained and that Iran was a much bigger threat. Once it was clear that
Bush was set on prioritizing Iraq, Sharon directed his officials to
stand down on the basis that as an American ally, Israel needed to
support the United States. In other words, causation was the opposite of
Wilson/Plame’s accusations.
The same dynamic occurred during the Arab Spring in 2011 when many neo-cons supported the uprisings, while the Israeli government did not.
You would probably not be surprised to hear that American media did not report on Wilson and Plame's troublesome views on Jews.