On eyes on Cheney in the leak case

The CIA leak case isn't over by a long shot - and Cheney is still at the center of the story.


Armitage may have leaked the information first. But it seems clear that White House officials, including those in the Office of the Vice President, also coordinated an effort to leak the information at almost the same time. In fact, according to the charges against him, Libby leaked Plame's identity to a reporter twice before Armitage ever spoke with Novak.

Fitzgerald explained that Libby's notes contain an instruction from Cheney to "tell information to Ms. Miller on July 8." Libby's position is that "the instruction reflected in his notes to tell ... Judith Miller refers to the NIE [National Intelligence Estimate]. He says he did not discuss Mr. Wilson's wife that day. To our understand[ing] both were discussed."
In other words, Libby claims he was instructed by Cheney only to disclose to Miller portions of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi WMD. Fitzgerald suggested that Libby was directed to tell Miller about Plame as well, which is what he went on to do.
Whether Fitzgerald follows up on that suggestion at trial and argues that Cheney explicitly instructed Libby to disclose Plame's CIA status, or only claims that Libby understood that to be the conduct expected of him, remains to be seen. Either way, the role of Cheney and Libby working together will be the most interesting aspect of Libby's trial.
Of course, Fitzgerald has not charged either Libby or Cheney with a crime for that coordinated effort. It is one of the imperfections of relying on criminal investigation for government oversight that it focuses on the question of who gets indicted and convicted, so that objectionable conduct that is not prosecuted ends up looking more acceptable by comparison. As Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus was quoted as saying in a Columbia Journalism Review article earlier this year, "The entire Plame investigation ... has been a distraction from a more fundamental conversation about how the White House handled evidence before the war." But whatever the ultimate legal disposition of the investigation, it is valuable to have learned that at least two of the four or five most powerful men in the United States were willing to disclose information about a CIA officer's identity as part of an effort to insulate the administration.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101406D.shtml