Should Cheney Be Worried?

From Andrew Sullivan writing for the Sunday Times of London tomorrow (tomorrow is already today in the UK).

Legal jeopardy still hangs over Rove. Libby will face a trial in which the vice-president may have to testify under oath. Political questions remain. The obvious question that still lingers is a simple one. Why did Libby lie? Why did such a smart and meticulous man put himself at risk of 30 years in jail if he had done nothing wrong in the first place?

We know from the indictment text that Libby got the classified information about Valerie Plame from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who got it from that part of the CIA that employs undercover agents. But Libby told the FBI and the grand jury that he got the information first from reporters. Why the discrepancy? If Libby had done nothing illegal why didn’t he just tell the truth?

It’s clear to me that Fitzgerald believes that there was a bigger reason for those little lies, a rationale for the coverup, a larger premise that makes sense of all of this.

Part of that premise has to involve the actions and motivations of Cheney. Fitzgerald and his team know this. They have not finished their inquiry and have an important potential source of new information facing a trial under a judge known for hefty sentences. Some kind of plea deal by Libby — a shorter sentence in return for naming names in the underlying case? — is not inconceivable.

If I were Cheney, I’d be sweating a little.

The Sunday Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also own FOX News and is notorious for the strong editorial control he exercises over his media outlets.