Pundits Trying to Help Cheney Avoid Jail

The stenographers of the
Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) are missing the most obvious explanation for
former Vice President Dick Cheney's widely reported "disappointment" with
former President George W. Bush on the issue of pardons - self-interest.

Barton Gellman of the Washington Post has now joined feature
writers from Time in aping Cheney's
hagiographer in chief, Stephen Hayes of The
Weekly Standard. They all choose to dote on Cheney's loyalty to his former
chief of staff, Irv Lewis "Scooter" Libby, while ignoring reasons why Cheney
might have hoped for a presidential pardon himself.

Gellman is a talented
journalist with a tainted record. He wrote a truly shameless article for the Post when it was competing with The New York Times for cheerleading
laurels prior to the war on Iraq.

First Leak It; Then Confirm
It

Remember those dangerous
sounding "aluminum tubes" said to be procured by Iraq to develop a nuclear bomb
- the ones that turned out to be for conventional artillery? The Bush
administration tasked the Times'
Judith Miller and Michael Gordon to push the canard that the tubes' technical
properties showed the intended use to be as casings for rotors in centrifuges
to enrich uranium, a key step in producing a nuclear bomb. The pair rose to the
occasion with flair.

The Times front-paged their story on Sunday, Sept. 8, 2002; and on the
morning talk shows Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza
Rice all referred to the Times story.
The ploy worked like a charm. None of the talk show hosts dared ask an impolite
question - like who gave the information to the Times.

The Post's Gellman was suborned into doing a similar story on chemical
weapons in the fall of 2002, when the White House was fuming at recalcitrant
analysts in both the Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA. The
not-yet-corrupted intelligence analysts still there could simply not get the
hang of it. They were having a hard time, sans
evidence, in producing faith-based intelligence on "weapons of mass
destruction" in Iraq.

DIA had issued a formal
report saying there was no evidence of active chemical or biological weapons
programs. And CIA analysts could find no credible evidence of meaningful ties
between Iraq and al Qaeda, despite the extreme pressure to find some. (The CIA
ombudsman told the Senate Intelligence Committee there occurred a "hammering"
of analysts more severe than any he had seen in his 32-year career in the
analysis directorate.)

Gellman to the Rescue

On Dec. 12, 2002, the Post front-paged a Gellman report that "Islamic extremists
affiliated with al Qaeda took possession of a chemical weapon in Iraq last
month or in late October." The story was attributed to "two officials with
firsthand knowledge of the report and its source."

Lest any readers miss the
import, Gellman stressed that, if true, this "would be the most concrete
evidence to support the charge, aired for months by President Bush and his
advisers, that al Qaeda terrorists receive material assistance in Iraq." The
next 27 paragraphs of Gellman's story were so laden with caveats and the
subjunctive mood that they brought to mind Alice's plaintive cry in Wonderland:

"There is no use trying, said Alice; one can't believe
impossible things. I dare say you haven't had much practice, said the Queen.
When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes
I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

The Dec. 12, 2002 Post article drew loud complaints,
including from the paper's ombudsman, Michael Getler, who asked: "What, after
all, is the use of this story that practically begs you not to put much
credence in it? Why was it so prominently displayed, and why not wait until
there was more certainty about the intelligence?"

Come on, Getler; you know
why. Bush and Cheney were scraping for evidence to "justify" attacking Iraq.
Gellman and your paper were happy to oblige.

Having proved his mettle,
Gellman was able to acquire the kind of access to Cheney and his palace guard
that would enable him to write a useful book, Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency, with some stunning revelations.

Cheney Lied to House
Majority Leader

For example, Gellman
describes how Cheney convinced then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a leading
Republican opponent of war with Iraq, to vote in favor of the war resolution:

"Cheney ... had ... a borrowed hideaway office in the
Capitol building. ... He brings Armey in ... [and says] 'Let me explain to you
what's really going on. ... Saddam is much more dangerous than we want to tell
the public.'"

"He told Armey two things that he's never said in
public and that are not true," Gellman continues. "He said that
Saddam personally ... had direct ties with al Qaeda. And he said that Iraq was
making substantial progress towards a miniature nuclear weapon" and would
soon have "packages that could be moved even by ground personnel" and
"a delivery system in their relationship with organizations such as al
Qaeda."

These claims, writes
Gellman, "crossed so far beyond the known universe of fact that they were
simply without foundation."

Good for Gellman - Then

But Gellman now seems to be
angling for still more access to Cheney and his dwindling circle of supporters.
In his Post article on Thursday, "Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush,"
Gellman is back to fawning for food. Maybe he has another book in mind,
confident that no one will take seriously the panegyric likely to come from the
pen of Cheney's "authorized biographer," neocon Stephen Hayes.

Gellman's sugary piece gets
a little sickening, but bear with me. Apparently, it is easy to focus on
Cheney's imaginary redeeming qualities, if you limit your interviews to his inner
circle. From Cheney's second-term national security adviser John Hannah, and
Aaron Friedberg, a foreign policy adviser, Gellman learns that Cheney "really
feels he has an obligation to save the country from danger."

Urgently Focused...But on
What?

Another interviewee was
impressed by Cheney's "continuing zeal" for the positions he took while in
office. Gellman describes Cheney as "urgently focused ... on shaping events." Gellman
also stirs up some empathy for the lion-in-winter ex-Vice President. According to
Gellman, Cheney takes a morning drive to Starbucks for a decaffeinated latte
(no caffeine because of his heart condition, you know) and attends the soccer
and softball games of his grandchildren.

The trouble for Gellman's
sympathetic portrayal is that there is far too much evidence of criminal
activity on the record about his subject, though you wouldn't know that from
reading the Post article.

What Cheney is "urgently
focused" on right now is staying out of prison. As he sits writing his memoir
in his own Eagle's Nest over his garage in a fancy Virginia suburb, Cheney is
pulling out all the stops to ensure that he does not have to face the music for
war crimes.

For Cheney, there
apparently will be no trips to Paris? No, that's where Rumsfeld almost got arrested
two years ago. After a war-crimes complaint was lodged, he had to go out the
back door of the embassy and dart to the airport for the first flight back to
the U.S., before the Paris magistrate decided whether or not to detain him.

Angry at Bush, But Why?

I do think that Hayes, the
pundits for Time and Gellman have it
right when they say that Cheney is angry with George W. Bush. But they are disingenuous
about why. By now they must have been able to figure out that when Cheney vents
his anger at Bush's failure to pardon Libby, the ex-Vice President is really
livid that Bush did not issue a blanket pardon for Cheney and other
co-conspirators. Cheney had every reason to expect the pardon (excusing crimes
such as torture and launching an aggressive war by deceiving Congress), given
that he seems to have engaged in those crimes with his boss' full knowledge and
encouragement.

Can these journalists be so
dense that they miss this motive for Cheney's anger? They paint a picture of a
man intensely loyal to a favored subordinate; and that is no doubt true, since
one's power is diminished to the extent you are seen as unable to protect
someone in your employ.

But when Cheney accuses
Bush of abandoning "an innocent man" who had served the President loyally; when
Cheney excoriates anyone who would "sacrifice the guy who was asked to stick
his head in the meat grinder" - he appears to be talking about himself as much
as Libby. It is such an obvious allegory, a classic example of self-pity
masquerading as altruism; and the pundits don't get it - or, more likely,
pretend not to.

My sense is that Cheney is
feeling abandoned; that he senses a real danger of being brought to justice;
and that he is waging a series of pre-emptive strikes to head that off.

Put yourself in Cheney's
shoes, as uncomfortable as they might be. Daughter Liz has disclosed more than
once what has her father so agitated - press reports that Attorney General Eric
Holder is close to appointing a special prosecutor to investigate White
House-authorized crimes, including torture - not policy differences, mind you,
but capital crimes under U.S. as well as international law.

Cheney's war crimes and
other felonies? Not enough room to list them all here. But suffice it to say
that Cheney's fingerprints - and those of his legal counsel David Addington -
are all over the torture policies. Inspector General reports from the
Department of Justice and from the CIA are scheduled to be released soon and
are sure to reveal more Cheney fingerprints.

Attorney General Holder
reportedly found the CIA IG report nauseating with what are bound to be
stomach-churning accounts of torture.

Revealing Photography

Still more photos, videos
and documents are likely to surface in the months ahead revealing more evidence
of torture, kidnapping and perhaps hit-team activities - even if President
Barack Obama succeeds in keeping most of the photos under wraps.

Reading recently about the
post-WWII Nuremberg Tribunal, I was reminded that it was the movies of Nazi
concentration camps that wiped the arrogant smirks off the faces of senior Nazi
officials, defendants like Hermann Goering and Rudolf Hess.

Bulldozers pushing corpses
into open pits, bodies stacked like cordwood - the movies taken by U.S.
soldiers of such atrocities had devastating effect. According to one witness,
"Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel sat there, bent over and broken, mopping his
lined face with a soggy ball of handkerchief." The smirks never came back.

Cheney and his associates
have got to be prepared for something similar, even though they were not
vanquished in war. They probably consider the chances slight that they would be
brought to an international court, even though Chief U.S. prosecutor, Supreme
Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, pointedly warned at Nuremberg:

"...the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are
inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen
responsible to the law. And ... while this law is first applied against German
aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must
condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in
judgment."

As for violations of U.S.
law, the list is long. Interestingly, two of the three Articles of Impeachment
against Richard Nixon approved by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 29
and 30, 1974, were based, in part, on misusing the CIA. Such misuse was brought
to a whole new level, as Cheney visited CIA Headquarters promoting
"intelligence" on non-existent threats and took a leading role in misusing the
agency to torture detainees.

There's also the
possibility that some of Cheney's co-conspirators will renounce their abuses,
either out of genuine remorse for the hubris they showed at the height of their
powers or in a bid to rehabilitate their careers. From his new job at Texas
Tech in Lubbock, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales earlier this week
conceded that he erred in using the word "quaint" and "the Geneva Convention"
in the same sentence in a memo he signed on its way to President Bush when
Gonzales was White House counsel.

Now that Gonzales has a job
with health benefits, we can expect further steps to disassociate himself from
the smoking-gun executive memorandum of Feb. 7, 2002, which ordered that the
protections of the Geneva Conventions would not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban
detainees.

It is also an open secret
that Cheney's chief lawyer, David Addington, drafted that memorandum, although
Gonzales forwarded it on so Bush could sign it. Late last year the Senate Armed
Services Committee reported that this Feb. 7, 2002 memorandum "opened the door"
to a wide range of abusive interrogations.

Though Addington mid-wifed
a whole generation of Bush-era illegalities, he has pretty much disappeared
from public view.

It seems a sure thing that
the next time Addington comes to testify on the Hill, the smirks he displayed
when he and John Yoo appeared before the House Judiciary will have disappeared.
Addington's view of the law is so bizarre that he might be disbarred. He is
more liability than asset to Cheney at this point.

What to Expect

The bottom line for Cheney
is this: Too much has gone wrong, and Cheney cannot afford to take any chances
that there will not be more cracks in the wall protecting Bush-era secrets.

The good news, as far as
Cheney is concerned, can be seen in the clear signs that neither Obama nor
Holder have any stomach for holding Cheney to account - and still less for
holding Bush accountable.

Perhaps there is something
in the water here in Washington, but folks in power seem far more interested in
circumventing the law than enforcing it - political expediency wins out over
solemn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution.

At times this avoidance of
accountability assumes ludicrous proportions, with the Obama administration
going the extra mile and more to cover up its predecessors' misconduct. For
instance, releasing the suppressed testimony of Dick Cheney before U.S.
Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in 2004 concerning the leaking of the name of CIA
operations officer Valerie Plame (in order to discredit her husband, former
U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had accused the White House of "twisting"
Iraq War intelligence) would certainly throw light on this sorry episode.

In the closing arguments of
the trial at which Libby was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of
justice, Fitzgerald declared: "There is a cloud over the Vice President...and
that cloud remains because this defendant obstructed justice."

Bush's Justice Department
refused to release Cheney's testimony, even though, as Fitzgerald said, "there
were no agreements, conditions and understandings" about keeping the transcript
secret.

Then, instead of living up
to President Obama's promise of openness, the new administration continued to
oppose releasing Cheney's testimony. In addition to the many reasons adduced by
the former administration for keeping the testimony secret, Obama/Holder's
lawyers added a new one, dubbed by Dan Froomkin the "Daily Show Disclosure
Exclusion."

A Justice Department lawyer
actually argued in federal court that there should be an exemption from the
Freedom of Information Act disclosure rules for documents that might subject
senior administration officials to embarrassment - as on Jon Stewart's "Daily
Show" on Comedy Central. Justice civil division lawyer Jeffrey M. Smith
contended that, if Cheney's remarks were published, then a future Vice
President might refuse to provide candid information during a criminal probe
out of concern "that it's going to get on the 'Daily Show.'"

If I were Cheney, that
feckless kind of lawyering would be music to my ears. I would read it as a sign
of cowardice on the part of Obama and Holder.

Obama and Holder sometimes
appear so eager to prove themselves to the Washington Establishment that they
protect Bush-Cheney secrets even when a disclosure would serve an important
national security goal.

After all, a powerful
argument for releasing the Cheney transcript would be that it might discourage
future senior government officials from leaking the identity of undercover CIA
officers for craven political reasons. Also, it might give a politician pause
before aiding and abetting a criminal cover-up.

It seems certain that
prosecutor Fitzgerald asked Cheney to explain his handwritten note demanding
that then-White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan falsely exonerate Libby
in the Plame leak, like McClellan had already done for Bush's political adviser
Karl Rove.

Cheney wrote:

"not going to protect one
staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder
because of incompetence of others - "

However, instead of the
words "that was," Cheney had initially written, "this Pres" before striking
through "this Pres.," which was still legible.

You don't have to be a
crackerjack analyst to figure out why Cheney changed the active to the passive
voice and struck out "this Pres." The evidence indicates that President Bush
was more directly involved in the Valerie Plame affair than is now understood.

Implicating Bush

Despite six months of
resisting demands for a serious investigation of Bush-Cheney wrongdoing, Holder
appears, finally, to be stepping to the plate with the intent of appointing a
special prosecutor, albeit one whose authority may be tightly circumscribed.

But Cheney doesn't want to
risk the chance that a special prosecutor might insist on expanding the probe
beyond the possible indictment of a few low-level operatives who exceeded the
Bush administration's prescriptions on how much water to use in waterboarding a
prisoner.

So, Cheney appears to be pursuing
a new strategy of pre-emption. His most obvious tactic is to tie his actions on
torture tightly to Bush. On May 10 when Bob Schieffer asked Cheney how much
Bush knew about the "enhanced interrogation techniques," the former Vice
President stated clearly, if redundantly:

"I certainly, yes, have every reason to believe he knew - he
knew a great deal about the program. He basically authorized it. I mean, this
was a presidential-level decision. And the decision went to the President. He
signed off on it."

Cheney seemed eager to
answer the question. The idea, of course, would be to juice the jitters he
already perceives at senior levels of the Obama administration, and to make it
clear that no one will take Cheney down alone; i.e., without Bush right beside
him.

In Cheney's view, this
image of a former President in the dock is sure to deter dithering lawyers and
politicos at the top of the White House and Justice Department, who are more
interested in sniffing the political winds than in enforcing the rule of law.

My worst fear is that
Cheney may be right.

This article appeared first on Consortiumnews.com