Were they more afraid of losing power or what the criminal consequences would be if they were found out?
“But what does the iceberg look like? Is it merely part of a post-invasion political cover-up run by the Cabal out of Rove's and Libby's Offices or is it more?
I believe that this "grand narrative" is part of a larger whole, and in order to get a sense of what it looks like, you have to change frames. You have to re-frame the entire war, from run-up to the unfolding run down and view ALL of it, not from a military/foreign policy frame but as a domestic political operation. Tactical, strategic, diplomatic decisions were determined not by their own exigencies but by Bush political requirements.
The War was conceived and is being executed as political not a military operation. It is not nor has it ever been run by generals and diplomats but ultimately and in every material respect as as a domestic political affair by Karl Rove, Scooter Libby on behalf of Bush/Cheney out of the WH.
Pat Roberts's role has been that of Master Sgt in charge of cover up. Think not of Operation Iraqi Freedom but of Operation Rolling Bullsh*t. Then you'll understand the War on Iraq in general and in any of its particulars.”
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28652<<<snip>>>
“That leads to the second, equally important point. Waas also reports that Rove thought as early as the summer of 2003 that the document was radioactive enough to potentially destroy Bush's re-election chances. Waas adds that Bush advisers thought that if doubts about the tubes came out, it would be much harder to shield Bush from criticism for them than it was for the uranium tale -- because there apparently existed hard evidence that the president had been told of those doubts.
Now fast forward to early 2004. That’s when Libby testified before the Plame grand jury. Patrick Fitzgerald’s indictment alleges that Libby lied about how and when he learned Plame’s identity and disclosed information about her to reporters. Rove, too, misled the grand jury by failing to mention a conversation with a reporter about Plame. (Rove subsequently disclosed it, but only after a discovered e-mail jogged his memory. Libby has pled innocent, and Rove wasn’t indicted, though he reportedly remains under investigation).
That’s where matters stand now. Now let’s try to fit these pieces together.
The thing about the Plame investigation that never quite seemed to make sense was this: Why would Libby or Rove deliberately mislead the grand jury, risking perjury charges when it wasn’t clear the leak was a crime?
Thanks to Waas, for the first time, we may now know for a fact that Rove and other Bush advisers viewed the truth about the run-up to war as something that could destroy his re-election prospects. It is entirely plausible that Bush advisers calculated that if it came out that they’d outed Plame, Congress would have been forced by the resulting firestorm to run a far more aggressive investigation of Bush’s pre-war deceptions – and possibly uncover the smoking gun Waas reports on, among other things. Remember, Libby and Rove testified in early 2004, during the heat of a presidential campaign which Rove himself had apparently concluded was at risk if existing hard evidence of Bush’s deceptions surfaced.”cont…
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11370
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
