Is Karl Rove stabbing Cheney in the back?

There are intriguing signs of George Bush trying to distance himself from Dick Cheney as the investigation into who leaked the name of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame homes in on members of the vice-president’s close circle. Leaking the name of a covert CIA officer is illegal under US law and an investigation has been going on for some time under Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald into who was responsible. Karl Rove, the president’s special adviser, reportedly “tipped off” Fitzgerald on the location of 250 emails that had mysteriously gone missing from the vice-president’s office.

We now know that Plame’s name was leaked to a succession of US journalists, most famously Judith Miller, late of the New York Times, and the great Bob Woodward, of Watergate fame, in an attempt to smear Plame’s husband Joseph Wilson. The former US ambassador had criticized Bush over claims, ironically true, that the British believed Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium ore from Niger.

Cheney's former chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted on five counts of obstruction and false statements made to Fitzgerald’s investigation last October. His lawyers have since been trying to tie up the investigation in red tape by demanding access to classified CIA documents they say will show their client is innocent.

Libby is not the only Cheney confidant said to be implicated in the case. The Sunday Times reported last November that Stephen Hadley, National Security Adviser, was the source who leaked Plame’s name to Woodward. Hadley owes his career to Cheney’s patronage during the administration of George Bush senior. 

Rove was initially thought to be one of those in the frame but according to the New York Times he is now “increasingly certain” that he will not be indicted, although that may not save his skin as Republican congressmen, desperate to improve the party’s declining standing ahead of this year’s mid-term elections, are equally desperate to give the administration an extreme makeover (their pressure has now led to the resignation of Bush's other close aide Andrew Card, his chief of staff). Now the US internet newspaper Raw Story is reporting that it was Rove who told Fitzgerald where to find the emails Cheney’s office didn’t want the special investigator to see.

It was a combination of the Downing St Memos - with their evidence of both the “fixing” of the intelligence and the sheer incompetence of the coalition’s preparations for the aftermath of war – together with the increaisng evidence on the ground in Iraq itself, that began the slide in the president’s ratings – now at an all time low. So it is interesting to see the New York Times, which contrived to ignore the original memos, coming up with one of its own that is far less revealing. Sadly it is the same memo previously reported in the paperback edition of the Philippe Sands book Lawless World and contains nothing of any interest that is new.

The memo is from David Manning, then Blair’s foreign policy adviser and the author of one of the key Downing St Memos. It is essentially the minutes of a meeting between Bush and Tony Blair at the White House in January 2003, The most interesting thing for British readers at this time would have been the questions over legality but what the New York Times reports does not add to the Sands version, indeed he has much more and given his expertise in international law I am sure he didn’t miss anything in that regard.

But since the New York Times has seen all five pages of the memo it would be nice to be able to read the text to make up our own minds. Perhaps the New York Times has some more revelations to report? If they have I can’t imagine what it might be, given that their initial report seems to contain nothing new. So if there isn't more to come why not put the text on the internet? Come on guys, TimesOnline published the text of the Downing St Memo, and got a huge hike in its ratings as a result. Why not put the text on the New York Times website so we can all see it?    

Comments

[Sherry Martin]

While I agree with your basic assessment that the memo contains no "new" information, I am intrigued that this time around it is getting much more attention...CNN is calling it "explosive new allegations", and I'm very much in favor of people noticing this thing and realizing what it means. Therefore, let's help get the word out, yes?

[curious]

Has Rove decided to limit damage to Bush by touting a bad apple message vis. Libby and, if necessary, Cheney? I'd welcome another explanation. This one is too Nixonian.

[Joel]

Whatever Rove is up to, it probably is not what it seems. He is, afterall, the Master of Deceit.

[SteveGinIL]

Thank you (and Raw Story) for this article. Hopefully, the U.S. media will have the gumption to take the story up as well.

Although I do point to May and the Downing Street Memo as the tipping point in Bush's decline, may I suggest that the real seed for his decline was planted when the U.S. population saw itself threatened by his effort to turn the Social Security system into an Easter egg hunt for stock brokerage houses.

I posit that even the Downing Street Memo would have had no effect had many of the people not wakened in the previously to their promised retirement nest eggs probably being dissolved into thin air. Even people who had given him the benefit of the doubt began to think that maybe Bush didn't have their best interests at heart. That stopped the Bush momentum.

The DSM definitely came at the right time, though, and I non-secularly bless the day it came to light.

[Chuck Unsworth]

The NYT has a history of acceding to all sorts of demands from the current Bush administration. Many of these 'requests' amount to blatant attempts to stifle comment or straight news stories where they may be 'unhelpful'.

It's not the job of the press to act as a news management system for any government. Sadly, many journals do, as they rely so heavily on information provided by governments. The only salvation is when well researched investigative reporting is published. This takes much time, effort and resource which newspapers often feel they cannot afford.

It's my view that the job of publishers is to sell newspapers, no more and no less. Anyone with half a commercial understanding would recognise that incisive and accurate reporting goes a long way towards selling more copies. Many newspapers have done very nicely out of properly mounted campaigns - take a look at the Washington Post, for example, or the Sunday Times Insight team's efforts. But the daily pressures of getting the paper out can sometimes outweigh long term strategic (or, Sales) thought.

[PeeJ]

Seems to me the most convenient way to ease Cheyney out, and Condi in. Everybody gets pardoned and life is good. Move along, nothing to see here.

Peace, back by popular demand.

[Ted]

I think this is all media speculation and tittle tattle. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and Rice are not only political soulmates but close friends - they are going nowhere and are regarded by most Americans as essential to winning the war.

Rove is the ultimate Machiavellian schemer and runs the elections. Bush is at a low point but is merely waiting for the right time in the political cycle to win votes. The reason he is not at a high point is because the electorate sense the administration is hesitating in the war, especially in relation to Iran. This makes people nervous. Expect moves against Iran soon, which have widespread public support and will increase the polls leading into the electoral cycle, which Condi Rice will win.

[solid]

Ted Says: "Expect moves against Iran soon, which have widespread public support and will increase the polls.."

Is the American public really that effing stupid? Ok, don't answer that.....

[DOUGLAS CLARK]

LOOK AT MY WEBSITE
( http://911again.tripod.com ) AND SEE THE "CONNECTED DOTS" THAT PROVE THAT BUSH WAS BEHIND THE 9/11 ATTACKS.

IT'S THE WEBSITE BUSH KNOWS MEANS PRISON FOR MURDER, IF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SEES IT.