6-25-07, 12:00 pm

The conviction of vice presidential aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby for perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements in connection with the exposure of Valerie Plame’s employment with the Central Intelligence Agency has cast a harsh light on the inner workings of a White House that has become consumed with secrecy, contemptuous of even the most rudimentary elements of democracy, and shrouded by an aura of entitlement.

At the heart of the Libby case is Vice President Dick Cheney, a man who since September 11, 2001 has done for “undisclosed locations” what good barbeque, Stax Records and Elvis Presley did for Memphis.

The irony is that Cheney’s nomination for the vice presidency doubtless involved a calculated series of criteria which, all things considered, looked like plusses on a political balance sheet. In the course of events, however, supposed strengths have been revealed as weaknesses and resemble nothing so much as the proverbial millstone which has further dragged the White House into a morass of perfidy and ignominy.

When then Texas Governor George W. Bush announced that Dick Cheney would be his running mate in the November 2000 presidential elections, there appeared to be some obvious benefits in the choice. Like Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton before him, Bush was a state governor who opted for a running mate with a track record as a Beltway insider. But whereas Carter and Clinton opted for running mates with experience on Capitol Hill in the form of Senators Mondale and Gore, respectively, the GOP has tended toward the nomination of executive branch insiders. Reagan nominated the current president’s father, George H.W. Bush, who by that time had served as the head of the Republican National Committee; the United States representative in Beijing; as well as a stint as director of central intelligence.

Before his nomination to the vice presidency, Cheney had served on Capitol Hill but was also a former White House chief of staff and a past secretary of defense. He was also, not insignificantly, the former chairman and chief executive officer of Halliburton Energy Services.

Only once since 1980 has a successful GOP presidential bid not featured an executive branch insider in this spot, and that was when George W. Bush was elected in 1988 alongside the photogenic but spelling impaired Dan Quayle of Indiana, and that ticket failed to secure a second term at the polls.

But in addition to being a consummate Washington and corporate operator, Cheney also provided something unique. Unlike the majority of the past holders of that position, Cheney had no ambitions to occupy the Oval Office. As a result, neither President Bush nor his vice president had to be concerned about positioning the number two man in the executive branch for a successful run up to the GOP presidential nomination in 2008; something that might have been as beneficial in terms of any injury to the chief executive’s ego when it comes to issues of being upstaged, but which might prove to be an unsolvable conundrum for the GOP’s national ticket next year.

The transformation of the his presumed strengths into the proverbial albatross around the administration’s neck took place slowly over time, and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 only accelerated a process for which the seeds had been planted years early. As a former White House chief of staff and defense secretary, Cheney would have become well accustomed to a culture of secrecy as both positions require extreme levels of sensitivity.

When the cultures of corporate power and dominance combine with the sometimes shadowy ways of genuine Beltway insiders, the results can be combustible as indeed they were in the prosecution of “Scooter” Libby, a legal production in which Cheney was dramatis personae, just off stage right. Cheney’s role as “backstage heavy” in the Libby trial was confirmed by statements made by the jury in the wake of the verdict.

Despite the verdict against Libby, the ultra right went to some extreme lengths to assert that no laws were really broken and this was, after all, a highly politicized prosecution which in the final analysis told us nothing about the US military intervention into Iraq. Many of these same pundits began to advocate an immediate presidential pardon for Libby, and while this was not forthcoming there remains the possibility of a pardon when the Bush administration enters its final days.

The absolute and almost pathological need for the ultra-right to believe that no laws were broken in connection with the Libby verdict is completely understandable given that this is a group that has consistently displayed an almost abject ignorance of law on a scale so vast it almost defies understanding.

One of the counts against Mr. Libby, and for which he was convicted, was the felony of lying to federal agents. More recently, this same law resulted in the resignation of former San Antonio, Texas Mayor Henry Cisneros from his position as secretary of housing and urban development during the Clinton administration’s first term, and to the conviction of mogul Martha Stewart. But because Cisneros isn’t part of the political ultra-right and Martha Stewart is….well….. Martha Stewart these cases apparently weren’t on the ulta-right’s radar. One can almost envision well-heeled, ultra-right-wing contributors imbibing from nicely-chilled martinis on their terraces commenting that the Libby verdict is the kind of thing that happens to other people and “not to us!”

Some right-wing commentators have said the disclosure of Ms. Plame’s CIA employment did not violate laws because she was, in their words, not a “covert operative.” This is important for them because the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 makes it a crime to identify an intelligence agent who is either known to be or recently was in a covert role. Only one person, former CIA employee Sharon Scranage, has ever been prosecuted under the act after disclosing the identities of CIA agents to her then boyfriend, who reportedly worked for Ghana’s intelligence service.

In focusing on whether Ms. Plame had or recently had a covert role, the ultra-right commentators don’t address whether her identity was considered classified information in and of itself. If that is the case, then the issue of whether she was covert or not would seem to be secondary. It will doubtless be a matter debated by legal scholars and by attorneys engaged in any civil litigation. In the last analysis, the Libby case provided a primer on the extent to which members of the Bush administration were ready, willing and able to manipulate journalists and break the law in order to cover up the truth about the US military intervention in Iraq: There were no “weapons of mass destruction,” nor did there exist any linkage between Al-Qaeda and the regime of deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

On April 5th, a declassified version of a report by the inspector general of the US Department of Defense was released. The report, entitled “Review of the Pre-Iraqi War Activities of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy,” focuses on one Douglas Feith, a Defense Department undersecretary for policy, and his activities prior to the US military intervention in Iraq in March of 2003. The report was declassified at the request of Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), who chairs the Armed Services Subcommittee.

Levin said, It is important for the public to see why the Pentagon’s inspector general concluded that Secretary Feith’s office “developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaeda relationship,” which included “conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community,” and why the Inspector General concluded that these actions were “inappropriate.” Until today, those details were classified and outside the public’s view.

Levin’s statement along with a report on the inspector general’s report was contained in an article by Matt Renner on the Web site of Truthout.org.

Renner writes: According to the IG report, both the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had throughly examined the possibility of an active relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida and determined there were “no conclusive signs [of a relationship],” and “direct cooperation ... has not been established.”

Feith’s Office of Special Plans, however, created a briefing based on a previous report, “Assessing the Relationship Between Iraq and al Qaida.” The presentation was aimed at discrediting the conclusions of the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

On August 15, 2002, a briefing on Feith’s findings was held by former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenent. However, left out of the presentation was the slide titled “Fundamental Problems With How the Intelligence Community is Assessing Information,” because according to the IG report, Feith thought “it had a critical tone.” After this briefing was presented to the DIA and CIA, Tenent told Feith, “get this back into analytical channels and out of policy channels.”

Despite being rebuked, Feith fast-tracked the information and presented the findings to then Deputy National Security Director Steven Hadley and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney. The release of the Defense Department’s inspector general is important not just because it is a scathing indictment against a political appointee and his alleged efforts to undermine an analysis by the US intelligence community in furtherance of a political agenda. It is important because President Bush has continued to insist that there was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. The inspector general’s report could be the “Downing Street Memo” of 2007.

The “Downing Street Memo,” it should be recalled, was a classified British document reporting that US intelligence “had been fixed” around an assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Is it not ironic that Ambassador Joseph Wilson, the husband of CIA agent Valerie Plame, reported following a trip to Niger that this assertion was flawed and his public opposition to administration policy led to the disclosure of his wife’s CIA employment – a catalyst for the indictment and prosecution of Mr. Libby. Now, in combination with the inspector general’s report that the intelligence community disputed any claims of linkage between the Hussein regime and Al-Qaeda, both of the Bush administration’s justifications for military intervention in Iraq have been revealed as completely falacious.

With the race for the White House and the November 2008 already underway with a host of Democratic and Republican contenders, the perceived advantage that Cheney was thought to have brought to the table – not being a candidate for the top job himself – is clearly a disadvantage now. The vice presidency is Mr. Cheney’s swan song, and his legacy and the legacy of the Bush administration, is inextricably bound up with Iraq.

Cheney is who he is. The vice president, asked to comment on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Syria, criticized Pelosi for what he termed “bad behavior” on her part. And if there is one thing Bush’s second, who accidentally shot a friend in the face while hunting but didn’t immediately report it, can testify to it is bad behavior. So can his former chief of staff, for that matter.

A presidential pardon for Mr. Libby could sink the GOP’s chances in 2008 in much the same way that the late President Ford’s pardon of Nixon led to Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter’s quest for the White House back in 1976. A pardon could also reinforce what so many believe; that Libby was indeed the vice president’s “fall guy.”

The GOP’s national apparatus is clearly nervous as their e-mail and telephone calls to supporters have increased significantly since the verdict in the Libby case.

While no one knows whether Mr. Libby will receive a pardon nor, for that matter, whether criminal and/or civil litigation will be commenced at some point, we do know that the Democratic Party’s midterm victory has proven tremendously important.

While the Democrats have not acted as decisively on the Iraq issue as many on the left would have wanted, it must be remembered that the Democrats and Republicans are umbrella coalitions which reflect a wide diversity of views on many issues, including Iraq. At the same time, the midterm victory has created an improved environment for the Progressive Caucus and made possible disclosures such as the Defense Department inspector general’s report refuting the ongoing claims by the administration of a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

In the British comedy series, “Yes Prime Minister,” the fictional cabinet secretary, Sir Humphrey Appelby as portrayed by the late Sir Nigel Hawthorne, lectures a subordinate on Britain’s “Official Secrets Act.” “The purpose of the ‘Official Secrets Act’ is not to protect secrets, it’s to protect officials,” he says. The Bush administration, deprived of the rubber-stamp, GOP-dominated House and Senate, may find both its secrets and its officials exposed. As the verdict in the Libby trial was delivered by jury, the people of the United States will render judgment on the Bush administration and its military adventures in Iraq, weighing the evidence and reaching our verdict in our workplaces, homes and communities….and in the voting booths one year from November.

--Lawrence Albright is a contributor to Political Affairs magazine. Send your letter to the editor to