Say it Here and it happens There

TM wondered aloud yesterday about the state of the Libby trial. In the course of his musings he asked an innocent enough question:

if anyone has a link to a tormented dead-ender conspiracist still explaining how (a) Plame's CIA affiliation was a big deal, (b) Fitzgerald's investigation is ongoing, and (c) Libby and Cheney led a massive conspiracy to punish Joe Wilson and make him cry by outing the wife, then I would love to see it.

As if on cue, former Clinton flack Sidney Blumenthal steps up:

Cheney knew that the intelligence for the war had been cooked. He was not obsessed with Wilson because he was angry that Wilson was allegedly falsifying information. Cheney was not seized with a feeling of injustice or a need to inform the public of the truth. Cheney is not a fool. "Cheney knows how to read intelligence reports. He knows how to read classified information," Richard Clarke, former director of counterterrorism on the National Security Council, told me. Of course, Clarke said, "Cheney had read the reports" that disproved the administration's line. "Cheney knew it was false," said Clarke. What worried Cheney was that he was keenly aware that the so-called intelligence the administration propagated was phony, shabby and shaky. What also peeved him was that Wilson had said that his mission had been triggered by a request from the Office of the Vice President.

In the aftermath of the invasion, as President Bush swaggered in a fighter pilot's flight suit on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, the administration's sway in Washington was at its zenith. The president's poll ratings were sky-high, the Republican control of the Congress airtight and the press corps embedded. Wilson was targeted as an enemy of the state. The same methods that had been used to whip up support for the war were now deployed against the straggler. Cheney's overbearing intensity was transmitted through his chief of staff. Once again, a compliant press would be exploited to do their bidding.

And it's only downhill from there.

It wouldn't be a critical piece of course without the obligatory neo-con reference: Despite these numerous red flags, President Bush uttered his infamous 16 words in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." A neoconservative member of the NSC, Robert Joseph, had contrived to sneak the falsehood into the speech by attributing it to British intelligence. (Never minding that the Brits still stand behind that assessment.)

For me the most amusing aspect of this is Blumenthal's gushing reliance on things that by the Feb 1 pub date were hardly rock-solid. First off:

Cheney was briefed on the CIA report immediately before or after his portentous remarks on television. (The CIA briefer, Craig Schmall, testified in the Libby trial that Cheney "did ask" for and "received" the report in "early 2002."

This Craig Schmall? (courtesy of TM again): My picks: Helping the defense, the biggest surprise was the absurd weakness of Grenier, Grossman, and Schmall. None of these three were at all convincing that they ever discussed Plame with Libby or took the news to be important, which reinforces Libby's implicit contention that she just was not that big a deal.

...

"More than a half dozen officials have said they passed along the same information earlier than that."

Yeah, we heard four of them (Grossman, Grenier, Schmall and Martin) last week at the trial, and not one had a firm handle on when and where they told him, nor mentioned a reference longer than about 30 seconds. Fitzgerald's theory is that these remarks were so consequential Libby could not have forgotten this information. But the trial testimony shows this is preposterous and the prosecution's own witnesses have been demonstrating that claim is preposterous.

...

We skip the undisputed VP reference, and go straight to Craig Schmall:

11. On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY met with a CIA briefer. During their conversation he expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical of the Vice President’s office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, “Joe Wilson” and his wife “Valerie Wilson,” in the context of Wilson’s trip to Niger.

The "displeasure" is obviously a different subject, perfectly valid, and Schmall tracks it down and finds the leaks are disinformation. Further, the only indication of "Valerie Wilson" are Schmall's handwritten notes . . . and he has no recollection of discussing it with Libby (or of much else).

Yes, that Craig Schmall.

Fast-forwarding to his concluding paragraph, Sid anxiously awaits Dick Cheney's appearance in court:

Cheney is scheduled to testify soon at the federal courthouse as a defense witness, where he will be questioned about his direction of the operation in which Libby acted as his pawn. Meanwhile, a few blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue, Congress debates resolutions against Bush's escalation of the war, haunted by the original "Authorization for Use of Military Force," which was approved with a naive trust that on a matter of war the president and the vice president would tell the truth.

From the link (damn deadlines anyway!): Left unmentioned by Mr. Corn - Fitzgerald interviewed Cheney during his investigation; Fitzgerald also announced that he won't be calling Cheney as a witness.

Oops. Certitude is a wonderful thing but only when the ground isn't moving beneath your feet. Too much certainty and not enough 'right' is a bad combo.