That works for me, too. Bushco, as a motivated seller of the Iraq war, does not worry about being caught, and Cheney carelessly marks up the Wilson op-ed with classified information as talking points at a point in time when Plame/Wilson are not public knowledge.

However that the annotated op-ed survived the investigation bothers me a little. Wouldn’t this same hubris enable (I presume)Bushco to disappear Cheney’s annotated copy before or even after the criminal investigation was announced? We know 12 or more hours passed between the time then AG Ashcroft warned then WH Counsel Gonzalez that an investigation would commence when Gonzalez informed the WH to preserve all materials relating to the matter. Surely there was enought time for the WH to take care of loose ends (and loose papers).

This is my thinking. I am happy to be proved wrong:

Given that Libby’s job is to protect Cheney, what better way to do so than to annotate a Wilson op-ed after learning of the criminal investigation? Yes, it’s a stupid story, as Fitz points out, but both Cheney and Libby can swear under oath it is true. Any classified information it contains was already public knowledge when Cheney wrote those words. ‘Cheney went back to the Wilson op-ed after reading the Novak article’–conveniently leaves out the fact the annotation could have occured weeks or even months after the Novak article was published. Maybe Libby hoped this annotated op-ed would force Fitz to call Cheney to the stand, then we would have been hearing about all powerfull VPs, executive privilege, separation of powers, etc.

That Fitz has declined to include Cheney in all the fun (for now) means Team Libby had to do the honors and call Cheney as a defense witness.

I do not know whether Cheney already weighed in on the timing of his annoations to the Wilson op-ed during previous discussions with Fitz. Maybe. Hope so. And I hope Fitz is allowed plenty of the other facts to disprove Libby’s self serving stories.

Why not write talking points on an UNDATED, supersecret, plain piece of paper? Otherwise these details, which are not guessable from Wilson’s article alone, prove that Cheney and by extension Libby had advance knowledge of Plame/Wilson prior to Leak Week.

Because you are in a battle with the CIA to fix intelligence, and the notion of a criminal prosecution doesn’t cross your mind. Because you are the power behind the goddamn throne, and the New York Times piece is the evidence that justifies you showing them that they better not mess with you. Because you and your buddies control State and Justice — who on earth would ever subpeona you?

I was hoping someone knows whether Cheney could bolster Libby’s explanation of ‘the way it happened’(see below) when Cheney takes the stand at Libby’s trial. Or whether Cheney has already committed himself to a different story in front of Fitzgerald:

Libby claims (according to Waas’ 1/12/06 article) that Cheney annotated the Wilson NYT op-ed AFTER Novak’s column is published. This scenario conveniently dovetails with Libby’s lies that Libby learned of Plame from Russert and other journalists and explains how Cheney could be ’shocked’ to learn that Wilson had been sent on a “junket” by the wife.
See?! No IIPA violations here!

In fact, Cheney scribbling on Wilson’s op-ed AFTER Novak’s article is published IS more believable to me than the story that Cheney inked his marks on 7/6/03 at the time Wilson’s op-ed was published and at the time he initially read it.

Why? Not because I agree with Libby, but because we know now that Cheney and his OVP operatives were already well-versed (before 7/6/03)in the details he reveals about Wilson and Wilson’s wife in the margins of the Wilson op-ed. So what would be the point of documenting them on the newsprint itself?
Why not write talking points on an UNDATED, supersecret, plain piece of paper? Otherwise these details, which are not guessable from Wilson’s article alone, prove that Cheney and by extension Libby had advance knowledge of Plame/Wilson prior to Leak Week.

However, if Cheney contradicts Libby what is the fallout? If Cheney agrees with Libby, what is the fallout?

I am getting an error.

Go Fitz!

Mary McCurnin @ 144

http://homepage.mac.com/marymc…..bum20.html

Go and see dog and cat interaction. They wove each other.

Mary, it interacts not for me :(

Maybe it is one of those MAC vs. PC mystery thingies. I don no.

birdie blogging

Oooh … pretty. Gorgeous colors.

I thought you’d like that part.

Does TRex know? he was planning on phoning in to their mea culpa-fest, but that must be long over by now.