Reply #43: There were a couple of other things going that may have created the context [View All]

[Peace Patriot]

for Fitzgerald backing off from Cheney--although I think we should remember what Fitzgerald actually said in public, which was that he COULDN'T find out WHY this crime--the outing of Plame--was committed (i.e., who did it) BECAUSE OF Libby's obstruction of justice and perjury, and that there was "a cloud over the vice president."

He went about as far as he could to say that "Cheney did it"--but he was obstructed.

You may not believe him--or think he had ulterior motives in not prosecuting Cheney--but he couldn't have laid the thing out more clearly, and he said a lot more than I ever thought he would (or ever heard a prosecutor say about a major political figure).

Something else he said--it's now up to the political system--or something like that.

2005-2006 are pretty interesting years for what may have been going on behind the scenes, in our political establishment and in the White House. The background to Katrina--the utter catastrophic failure of the Bush-Cheney White House--I think was an all-out internal battle between Bush/Rove and Cheney/Libby on who was going to take the fall for the Plame outing. You may recall how stranded Junior looked during Katrina--caught playing a guitar and eating birthday cake with McCain, while disaster struck New Orleans. Where were his handlers? I think they were slugging it out over the Fitzgerald investigation. Rove won, possibly because he really didn't do it--he was merely responsible for touting the political vengeance story--a cover story. The Plame outing had to do with crippling the CIA's counter-proliferation capabilities, so that a war with Iran could be manufactured. Wilson's op-ed was not the reason for the outing. That could have easily been washed down the corporate 'news' monopoly river of forgetfulness. But something like planting WMDs in Iraq that were trackable to Iran may have been the real object of these events--and the CIA counter-proliferation unit may have been in the way. (David Kelly, who was found dead near his home in England, under highly suspicious circumstances, four days after Plame was outed, may have also been in the way of such a plot.)

From 2005 through 2006, there were many indications that Cheney-Rumsfeld were going to nuke Iran. Then two things happened: (November 06) the Democrats won the 2006 elections (and were soon funding the "surge," giving the Bushwhacks everything they asked for, for Iraq), and (December 06) Rumsfeld resigned. To the voters, the elections were about Iraq, but not to the people who somehow got elected to Congress. There was to be no change of policy in Iraq. The Democrats made that very clear, early on. So, why did Rumsfeld resign? And, why, apropos of nothing, did Pelosi say, in that same period, just after the elections, that impeachment was "off the table"?

The answer may be that Cheney-Rumsfeld's plan to attack Iran was insane, and they were curtailed. Another development during this period was Daddy Bush's formation of the "Iraq Study Group" and I think what that group was really about was rescuing Junior from Cheney-Rumsfeld's insane plan to attack Iran. The military brass were in rebellion against it. Possibly nuclear powers China and Russia threatened to come in, on Iran's side. And Iran was a lot better defended than Iraq was. And, within three months of Rumsfeld's resignation, and Pelosi's "off the table" remark, nuking Iran simply went away. There has been no talk of it since. I think that at some point in circa late 2006, a delegation comprised of top military brass, Daddy Bush, CIA (Leon Panetta, member of the ISG, and, in my opinion, long time, deep cover CIA) and other powerful players offered a deal to Bush-Cheney: no nuking of Iran, no impeachment/prosecution, and Rumsfeld has to go.

This is how it was all handled--in secrecy. After this point, Bush-Cheney were essentially no longer in charge of US foreign policy or war policy. And if I'm right, how could a prosecutor oppose "the deal" of such powerful players? It was not an ideal political settlement of the matter, by any means. But it WAS a settlement of the matter. Cheney was curtailed. Rumsfeld was out (his plan for attacking Iran being the true reason for the Plame outing). What could a prosecutor do, if the political establishment had guaranteed no impeachment/prosecution in exchange for not perpetrating Armageddon?

I think this is pretty much what happened, and that Fitzgerald was clued in that Cheney had been de-fanged. WE may consider it an entirely undemocratic, mafia-like event (this power delegation putting it to Bush-Cheney) but HE (Fitzgerald) may have considered it a political solution. Fitzgerald is an establishment figure. He's a player, as they say--but is not on a par with those who curtailed Cheney-Rumsfeld. He wasn't even AG, just a prosecutor (and had to fight like hell to retain what power he had). Matter settled, in his view. Cheney's equals in power and ruthlessness had taken care of the problem.

One more thing: How come Junior didn't pardon Libby? I think the answer to that is that Cheney/Rumsfeld had gotten Junior into such deep trouble, with their insane plan to nuke Iran, and riling up the CIA, such that the whole edifice of Bush's life (his father, the CIA, the military and major politicos and corpos) had turned against his presidency, that he refused to pardon Libby just to spite Cheney. (Possibly the powers that took charge of his presidency wouldn't let him pardon Libby, but I like the spite reason better.)