Reply #19: Good article today by Leopold and Ash on Cheney's memo, and it has the

[Peace Patriot]

actual memo posted--in Cheney's handwriting.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107Z.shtml

Memo directs Scott McClellan to exonerate Libby publicly as he had done Rove, because (we are) "not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others." Good analysis by L&A, re why Cheney wrote "the Pres." (Bush) into the sentence then crossed it out. The memo points to Bush as the one who got Libby to attack Wilson.

I think it's quite likely that Rove is under threat of indictment, pressured to testify relatively truthfully in the Libby perjury/obstruction case. Libby is protecting the masterminds--Cheney, clearly pointed to by Fitzgerald; and (my pick for chief mastermind) Rumsfeld, lurking in the background--not pointed to by anything Fitz has said. As for Goofus--pointed to in this memo--Cheney no doubt has the goods on him, all stamped with the royal seal, safely in a vault somewhere, which is why we're escalating in Iraq and threatening Iran.

I gather from Libby's defense--which claims that Rove & Co. are "scapegoating" him--and other evidence, that that is what Libby was trying to do to Rove. This may be why Rove wasn't indicted. He was a political errand boy on this one. I think the whole thing was hatched in the Pentagon and has aspects to it that are unseeable at present. Sealed v. Sealed. If it's connected to this case (and the timing of it points that way) it's probably Cheney. I hope it's Rumsfeld. Rove has a deal, I think (at least on Libby's trial). Rove was one of the outers of Plame. It's in the evidence/testimony. He broke the law. But whether he did so for Cheney's or Rumsfeld's reasons is hard to know. And THAT is a crucial question to Fitzgerald--stated by him in his one press conference on this matter--WHY they outed Plame (and the entire Brewster-Jennings WMD counter-proliferation network) is the grave national security matter that he spoke of.

I didn't know there were two "Sealed v. Sealed"'s. That title is certainly interesting. It could be U.S. Attorney vs. U.S. Attorney General. That's what I thought when I heard of the first one. It would be like Gonzalez to try to interfere (meat-handed), and he is indictable for obstruction (gave warning and shredding time to the perps). But the way Fitz is pointing to Cheney these days, you gotta figure it could well be Cheney. Fitz would want to keep that covert. And it could also be Rove--a way of keeping that criminal on a short leash.